The  Themes  Treated  by  the 
Elder  Seneca 


DISSERTATION 


'HESENTED  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  PH.  D.,  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 

JUNE,  1896 


BY 
THOMAS  STANLEY  SIMONDS 


THE  FRIEDENWALD  CO. 

BALTIMORE,    MD. 


The  Themes  Treated  by  the 
Elder  Seneca 


DISSERTATION 


PRESENTED  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  PH.  D.,  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 

JUNE,  1896 


BY 
THOMAS  STANLEY  SIMONDS 


THE  FRIEDENWALD  CO. 

BALTIMORE,    MD. 


Sr? 


CONTENTS. 


PART    I.  PAGE 

Preface 5 

I. — Rhetoric  in  general 7-14 

1.  Evolution  of  the  late  rhetoric 7 

a.  Asian  schools 8 

b.  Causes  of  the  decline  of  Greek  oratory 8-9 

2.  Political  and  social  conditions  favoring  the  evolution  of  rhetoric 

at   Rome 9 

a.  Oratory  among  the  Romans 9-12 

b.  Decay  of  oratory  at  Rome 12-14 

II. — The  Roman  rhetoricians 15-38 

1.  Their  position  in  the  new  fabric  of  the  state *$-l7 

2.  Their  method  of  instruction 17-20 

a.  Various  kinds  of  declamations  in  the  imperial  period. . . .  21-22 

b.  Character  of  the  declamations  of  the  imperial  period. ...  23-33 

c.  Influence  of  rhetoric  on  other  branches  of  literature 33~35 

3.  The  character  and  attainments  of  the  rhetoricians 35-38 

PART    II. 

I. — Seneca  the  Elder 39~52 

1.  His  life 39~42 

2.  His  character 42~44 

3.  His  writings 44~47 

4.  Value  of  his  rhetorical  writings 47-5° 

5.  His  attitude  toward  rhetoric  and  rhetoricians 50-52 

II. — MSS.  and  editions  of  his  rhetorical  writings 53~56 

1.  MSS 53-55 

2.  Editions 55~56 

PART  in. 

I. — The  sources  of  the  Suasoriae  and  Controversiae 57-68 

II. — Classification  of  the  subjects  of  the  Suasoriae  and  Controversiae  68-70 
III. — Parallels  of  the  subjects  discussed  in  the  Controversiae  of  Se- 
neca, the  Declamations  of  the  pseudo-Quintilian,  and  Cal- 

purnius  Flaccus 71-81 

IV. — The  legal  aspects  of  the  Controversiae 82-98 

Bibliography 98-100 


254832 


PREFACE. 

The  writings  of  Seneca  the  Elder,  as  well  as  the  declamations 
preserved  under  the  names  of  Quintilian  and  Calpurnius  Flaccus, 
introduce  us  to  a  peculiar  and  characteristic  phase  of  mental  and 
literary  activity.  This  activity  has  neither  the  charm  of  youth 
nor  the  repose  of  maturity,  but  is  rather  that  of  degeneration  and 
decay.  Antique  mental  life  is  presented  in  these  writings  as  it 
verged  on  its  second  childhood,  and  it  will  not  be  without  interest 
to  sketch  briefly  on  the  basis  of  Seneca's  writings  this  phase  of 
classical  literature,  to  state  its  causes  and,  as  far  as  may  be,  to 
trace  to  their  sources  the  examples  of  it  which  remain. 


PART  I. 
I. — RHETORIC  IN  GENERAL. 

i.  Evolution  of  the  late  rhetoric. 

Of  all  the  species  of  Roman  literature  none  traces  its  origin 
to  Greece  more  directly  than  rhetoric,  and  it  will  not  therefore  be 
without  advantage  to  consider  briefly  rhetoric  as  distinguished 
from  the  old  oratory  among  the  Greeks. 

It  was  Isocrates  who  gave  to  Greek  eloquence  its  finish 
and  polish  and,  what  is  perhaps  of  greater  importance,  infused 
into  it  an  ethical  element.1  It  attained  its  height  in  Demosthenes. 
Aristotle  in  his  Rhetoric  gave  it  a  scientific  basis.  But  very  early 
there  manifested  itself  in  oratory  a  tendency  to  go  astray,  which 
provoked  the  censure  of  Isocrates,2  and  the  sharp  attacks  of 
Plato.3  Its  decline  was  steady.  After  the  downfall  of  Athenian 
freedom  scarcely  one  great  orator  can  be  mentioned.  Signs  of 
decay  or  at  least  of  a  lack  of  productiveness  are  already  shown 
in  Dinarchus,  who  was  an  imitator.4  The  style  also  became  lax 
and  weak.5  In  subjugated  Athens  there  was  no  longer  a  field  for 
oratory,  which  accordingly  emigrated  to  the  free  and  flourishing 
cities  of  Asia-Minor.  There  it  exhibited  great  activity  but  in  a 
dreadfully  artificial  and  distorted  manner.  We  refer  to  the 
so-called  Asian  style. 

1  Cf.  Blass,  Die  griechische  Beredsamkeit,  p.  78  sq.;  Geschichte  der  attischen 
Beredsamkeit  ii,  p.  41  ;  Spengel,  Ueber  das  Studium  der  Rhetor ik  bei  den 
Alien,  p.  8. 

2Cf.  10  (Hel.)  i  sq.;   n  (Busir.)  9.  49. 

8C£.  Phaedr.  267  A  sq. 

4  Cf .  Dionysius  Halicarnassus,  De  Dinarcho  judicium  c.  5  :  "  .  .  .OVJU.TJV 
ak7.a  Kal  TOV  Aijfj.oG'&eMKOv  ^apa/cr^pof,  bv  ^a/Uora  c^^craro ; "  Blass,  Die 
griech.  Bereds.,  p.  15;  Susemihl,  Geschichte  der  griechischen  Litterat^ir 
in  der  Alexandrinerzeit,  1892,  ii,  p.  461. 

5Cf.  Cicero,  De  oratore  ii,  23,  95  :  posteaquam  extinctis  his  omnis  eorum 
memoria  sensim  obscurata  est  et  evanuit,  alia  quaedam  dicendi  molliora  ac 
remissiora  genera  viguerunt. 


8'    THE 'THEMES  "TREATED  BY  THE  ELDER  SENECA. 

a.  The  Asian  schools. — Hegesias  of  Magnesia  at  Mount  Sipylos, 
who  lived  about  250  B.  C.,6  is  regarded  as  the  founder  or  at  any 
rate  the  foremost  representative  of  the  Asian  school.7    Hegesias's 
diction  was  marked  by  a  striving  after  metaphors  and  figures, 
an  indulgence  in  surprising  puns  and  puerile  witticisms,  and  by 
a  lack  of  dignity  and  sincere  feeling.     In  his  attempt  to  imitate 
the  simple  periodic  structure  of  Lysias,  he  minced   everything 
into  short  sentences  to   which  he  added  the   frequent   use  of 
hyperbaton.8     It  may  be  said  in  general  that  the  Asian  style  is 
distinguished  from  the  old  Attic  by  its  affectation,  turgidily  of 
verbal  ornament,  and  inanity  of  thought.9 

b.  Causes  of  the  decline  of  Greek  oratory. — What  Seneca  says 
in  reference  to  Roman   eloquence  is  applicable  to  the  Grecian 
also  and  to  human  achievement  in  general:  "fato  quodam  cuius 
maligna  perpetuaque  in  rebus  omnibus  lex  est,  ut  ad  summum 
perducta  rursus  ad  infimum  velocius  quidem  quam  ascenderant, 

6  Cf.   Blass,   Die  griech.  Bereds.^  p.  25;    Susemihl,    Gesch.   der  griech. 
Litterat.  ii,  pp.  463  sq. 

7  Cf.  Strabo  xiv,  648  :    "  avdpef  6'  kyivovro  yv&pi/uoi  Mdywyref  'Hy^ciaf  re  b 
pr/Tup,  6f  r]p^ e  fiaTiicra  TOV  'Aaiavov  fayopevov  tyfav  6t,a<j>'deipar  TO  /cai?£<rrtjc  £#0f 
TO  'ATTIKOV  .  .  .  "  ;  Blass,  Die  griech.  Bereds.,  pp.  5.  16,  following  Dion.  Hal., 
De  antiq.  orat.  pro.  i,  dates  the  Asian  school  not  from  Hegesias,  but  from 
the    death   of  Alexander  the -Great   and  makes   it  begin  with  Demetrius 
Phalereus,   who   died   about   283  B.  C.      Cicero,  Brutus  ix,  38,  says   of 
Phalereus  ;    "  Hie  primus   inflexit  orationem  et  earn  mollem  teneramque 
reddidit  et  suavis,"  while  Quintilian,  Instit.  orat.  x,  i,  80,  considers  him  as 
having  had  "multum  ingenii  et  facundiae." 

8  Cf .  Cicero,  Orator  Ixvii,  226  :  " .  .  .  dum  ille  quoque  imitari  Lysiam 
vult  .  .  .  saltat  incidens  particulas.     Et  is  quidem  non  minus  sententiis 
peccat  quam  verbis,  ut  non  quaeret  quern  appellet  ineptum,  qui  ilium  cog- 
noverit";  ibid.  Ixix,  230:    "  Sunt  etiam  qui    illo  vitio,  quod  ab  Hegesia 
fluxit   infringendis   concidendisque  numeris  in  quoddam  genus  abiectum 
incidant  versiculorum  simillimum";  Dion.  Hal.,  De  compositione  verborum 
c.  xviii,  who  quotes  from  the  History  of  Hegesias  to  illustrate  his  style  ;  cf. 
also  Blass,  Die  griech.  Beredsamkeit,  pp.  31  sq.  and  Susemihl,  Geschichte  der 
griech.  Lift.,  p.  467. 

9  For  a  more  detailed   description  of  the  Asian  style  compare  Cicero, 
Brutus  xcv,  who  distinguishes  two  divisions  of  it,  the  sententious  and  the 
verbose,  and  mentions  their  principal  representatives,  cf.  also  ibid,  xiii,  51. 
For  the  relation  of  the  Asian  school  to  the  second  Sophistic,  which  received 
a  new  impetus  in  the  second  century  and  kept  itself  alive  until  the  end  of  the 
old  Greek  civilization  in  the  sixth  century,  compare  Rohde,  Der  griechische 
Roman>  pp.  290  sq.  and  in  Rheinisches  Museum  xli  (1886),  p.  170-190. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  Q 

relabantur." 10  In  the  art  of  oratory  there  seems  to  be  an  inherent 
tendency  to  deviate  from  simplicity  and  truth,  and  to  run  riot. 
As  particular  causes  of  its  decay  in  Greece,  its  proper  home,  may 
be  mentioned  the  general  decadence  of  the  Greek  nation ;  true 
oratory  can  flourish  only  among  a  free,  patriotic,  high-minded 
people,  not  under  a  "  fierce  democracy  which  has  sunk  into  the 
lifelessness  of  a  cheerless  and  dishonored  old  age."11  Then,  too, 
there  was  the  change  of  the  seat  of  artistic  speech  from  Attica  to 
Asia,  exuberant  and  exaggerating  in  all  things.  To  this  must 
be  added  the  absence  of  any  lively  political  interest ;  as  liberty 
declined,  deliberative  discourse  was  deprived  of  its  real  object, 
and  the  corruptness  of  the  courts  left  little  room  for  true  forensic 
oratory.  All  orations  became  more  or  less  show-speeches,  and 
the  speaker  could  indulge  only  in  rhetorical  commonplaces ; 
having  no  attainable  object  before  him,  he  was  led  to  employ  all 
his  efforts  on  form  and  to  exhibit  his  art  in  ostentation  and  bom- 
bast. Moreover,  there  had  come  into  being  a  subtle  and  minute 
development  of  rhetorical  technique  which  of  necessity  hindered,  if 
it  did  not  wholly  stifle,  spontaneous  heartborn  eloquence.  It  will 
be  seen  that  causes  precisely  similar  brought  about  the  decline 
of  Roman  oratory  also. 

2.  Political  and  social  conditions  favoring  the  evolution 
of  rhetoric  at  Rome. 

a.  Oratory  among  the  Romans. — Next  to  Greece  no  country 
afforded  a  grander  field  for  the  growth  and  display  of  oratorical 
genius  than  Rome.  If  the  Roman  character  lacked  the  elegance 
and  grace  of  the  Greek,  especially  the  Athenian,  this  was  counter- 
balanced by  a  dignity  and  gravity  of  speech  which  was  supported 
by  the  senatorial  system  and  which  was  never  reached  at  Athens. 
"  The  Roman  mind,  unlike  the  Greek,  did  not  instinctively  con- 
ceive the  public  speaker  as  an  artist.  It  conceived  him  strictly  as 
a  citizen,  weighty  by  piety  and  years  of  office,  who  has  something 
to  say  for  the  good  of  other  citizens,  and  whose  dignity,  hardly 
less  than  the  value  of  his  hearers'  time,  enjoins  a  pregnant  and 
severe  conciseness."12  The  practical  sturd)'  Roman  of  the  earlier 

IQ  Praefatio  Contr overs,  i,  7. 

11  Freeman,  History  of  Federal  Government  i,  p.  221  ;  cf.  Seneca,  Praef. 
Controv.  i,  8  sq. 

12  Jebb,  The  Attic  Orators  ii,  p.  446. 


10  THE   THEMES   TREATED    BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA. 

period  took  no  interest  in  theories  and  technical  treatises  on 
oratory.  Even  the  writing  down  of  speeches  after  delivery  was 
rarely  if  ever  resorted  to.13  The  theory  and  technique  of  eloquence 
do  not  begin  to  receive  attention  among  the  Romans  before  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  B.  C.  in  consequence  of  the  great 
oratorical  activity  of  that  period,  all  the  works  of  which  seem  to 
be  rhetorically  colored.  This  development  took  place  under  the 
influence  of  Greece.  Rhetoric  was,  as  it  were,  the  inheritance  of 
the  Greek  nation,  and  when  her  own  independence  was  at  an  end, 
it  was  to  Rome  that  her  children  carried  their  talents.14  Many 
Romans  received  lessons  from  Greek  rhetoricians,  and  at  first  the 
Greek  language  was  predominantly  employed  in  rhetorical  exer- 
cises.15 There  was  at  first  a  strong  opposition  at  Rome  to  Greek 
rhetoric  and  rhetoricians,  led  by  Cato  and  those  like-minded  to 
him  ;16  but  after  the  Gracchi,  who  were  more  Hellenic  in  their 
tastes,  Greek  rhetorical  art  began  to  exercise  a  considerable  in- 
fluence on  Roman  oratory,  and  before  100  B.  C.  florid  Asianism 
had  its  admirers  at  Rome.17  It  was  in  fact  in  its  Asian  form  that 
Greek  rhetoric  became  the  teacher  of  the  Romans,18  but  it  was  not 
until  about  90  B.  C.  that  L.  Plotius  Gallus  and  others  established 
a  school  and  taught  the  principles  of  rhetoric  in  Latin.19  Accord- 
ing to  Blass,20  L.  Crassus  (140-91  B.  C.)  and  M.  Antonius  (143-87 
B.  C.)  were  the  first  Roman  orators  who  were  influenced  by  Helle- 

13  Cf.  Seneca,  Praef.  Contr.  i,  9  :  "  ille  enim  vir  (sc.  Cato)  quid  ait  ?  orator 
est  .  .   .  vir  bonus  dicendi  peritus^ 

14  Cf.  Blass,  Die  griechische  Beredsamkeit,  pp.  104  £.,  115;  Marx,  Chauvi- 
nismus  und  Schulreform,  p.  13. 

15  Cf.  Cicero,    Brutus   Ixxxix,  310  :    "  Commentabar    declamitans  .  .  .   ; 
idque  faciebam  multum  etiam  Latine,  sed  Graece  saepius,  vel  quod  Graeca 
oratio  plura  ornamenta  suppeditans  consuetudinem  similiter  Latine  dicendi 
adferebat,  vel    quod  a  Graecis   summis   doctoribus,  nisi  Graece    dicerem 
neque  corrigi  possem  neque  doceri";  Suetonius,  De  clar.  rhet.:  "Cicero 
ad  praeturam  usque  Graece  declamavit,  Latine  vero  senior  quoque.  .  .  ." 

16  Cf.  Blass,  Die  griech.  JBereds.,^.  105.  115;  Mommsen,  Rdmische  Ge- 
schichte  ii,  p.  246;  Marx,  op.  cit.,  p.  12. 

17  Cf.  Blass,  ibid.\  Jebb,  The  Attic  Orators  ii,  pp.  446  sq. 

18  Cf.  Rohde,  Der  griechische  Roman,  p.  288. 

19  Cf.  Quintilian,  Instil.  Orat.  ii,  4,  42:  "Latinos  vero  dicendi  praecep- 
tores  extremis  L.  Crassi  temporibus  coepisse  Cicero  auctor  est;    quorum 
insignis  maxime  Plotius  fuit";  Seneca,  Praef.  Control',  ii,  5;   Suetonius, 
De  clar.  rhet.  2  ;  Cicero,  De  orat.  iii,  24,  93,  cf.  also  Marx,  Chauvinismus  und 
Schulreform,  p.  15;  Cucheval,  Hist,  de  Vttoq.  rom.  ;,  p.  224. 

20  Die  griech.  Bereds.^  p.  120. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  II 

nism.  M.  Antonius  was  also  the  first  after  Cato  to  write  a  rhetori- 
cal treatise  in  Latin.21  The  most  important  work  on  the  subject 
is  the  treatise  Ad  Herennium,  ascribed  to  Cornificius  and  probably 
written  some  years  previous  to  80  B.  C.  It  is  of  the  same  char- 
acter as  the  Greek  manual  of  Anaximenes,22  only  brought  up  to 
date  and  adapted  to  the  more  practical  requirements  of  Roman 
oratory."  Latin  rhetoric  indeed  always  remained  essentially  a 
Greek  form  of  mental  discipline,  and  as  such  became  eventually  a 
great  and  lasting  force  for  the  ruin  of  Latin  literature.24  We  wit- 
ness at  Rome  a  repetition  of  the  process  which  took  place  in 
Greece.  The  different  styles  or  rather  manners  of  oratory  arose 
in  succession  at  Rome ;  the  pure  Asian  is  represented  by  Quintus 
Hortensius ;  the  Atticizing  or  eclectic  style,  which  was  developed 
in  the  Rhodian  school,  by  M.  Tullius  Cicero,26  and  the  pure  Attic 
style,  upheld  among  the  Greeks  by  Dionysius  Halicarnassus,  by 
C.  Licinius  Calvus.26  The  victory  of  the  old  Attic  oratory  over 
Asianism  at  Rome  and  in  Greece,  and  the  other  provinces  as  well, 
dates  from  about  60  B.  C.,  but  even  from  the  middle  of  the  second 
century -a  reaction  had  set  in  against  this  unwholesome  and 
unnatural  outgrowth.  A  struggle  against  it  arose  in  Pergamum 
especially.27  Hermagoras  of  Temnos  also  and  his  school  about 
the  middle  of  the  second  century  B.  C.,  subtle  and  scholastic  as 
his  system  was,  "  did  good  service  by  reviving  the  conception  of 
oratory  not  as  a  knack  but  as  an  art,  and  so  preparing  men  once 

21  Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  iii,  I,  19;   Cicero,  Brutus  xliv,  163  ;  De  orat. 
i,  21,94;  48,  208. 

22  It  is  also  called  Rhetor,  ad  Alexandrum  and  was  ascribed  to  Aristotle, 
but  it  is  now  generally  agreed  that  it  is  a  work  of  Anaximenes  of  Lamp- 
sacus  ;  Susemihl  alone  disputes  this,  and  thinks  it  originated  as  a  connect- 
ing link  between  the  Isocratean  and  Hermagorean  methods  at  the  begin- 
ning or  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century  B.  C. 

23  Cf.  Spengel,  Ueber  das  Studi^tm  der  Rhetorik,  p.  102,  and  in  Rheinisch. 
Museum,  xviii  (1863),  p.  487. 

24  Cf.  Marx,  Chauvinismus  u.  Schulref.,  pp.  17  .  18. 

20  Cf.  Dion.  Hal.,  De  Din.jud.  c.  8;  Cicero,  Orator  viii,  25  ;  Brutus  xiii, 
51  :  "  Khodii  saniores  et  Atticorum  similiores";  Quint.,  Inst.  Orat.  xii,  10, 
18  :  "Genus  Rhodium  quod  velut  medium  esse  ";  comp.  also  Rohde,  Der 
griech.  Roman,  p.  289;  Susemihl,  Gesch.  der  griech.  Lift,  ii,  p.  489;  Wes- 
termann,  Geschichte  der  Beredsamkeit  i,  p.  176  \  81,  and  Blass,  Die  griech. 
Beredsamkeit,  p.  4  .89,  who,  however,  thinks  that  the  school  of  Rhodes  did 
not  deserve  the  credit  accorded  to  it. 

26  For  a  characterization  of  him  comp.  Seneca,  Controv.  vii,  4,  6  sq. 

27  Cf.  Susemihl,  Gesch.  der  griech.  Lift,  ii,  p.  482  sq. 


12  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

more  to  discern  the  true  artists  and  the  false."2  But  the  decisive 
battle  against  Asianism  was  fought  and  won  at  Rome  especially 
through  the  agency  of  Apollodorus  of  Pergamum,  100-18  B.  C, 
the  teacher  of  Augustus.''9  The  principal  cause  for  the  defeat  of 
Asianism  is  probably  the  fact  that  its  pompous  and  inane  jingling 
could  not  satisfy  the  great  and  practical  needs  of  Roman  public 
life,  and  therefore  the  sturdy  Roman  orators  abandoned  their  liv- 
ing Asianic  teachers  for  the  immortal  masters  of  the  old  Attic 
eloquence.30 

b.  Decay  of  oratory  at  Rome. — The  victory  of  old  Attic  oratory 
over  Asian  rhetoric  at  Rome  was  of  short  duration.  "  Quidquid 
Romana  facundia  habet,  quod  insolenti  Graciae  aut  opponat 
aut  praeferat,  circa  Ciceronem  effloruit ;  omnia  ingenia,  quae 
lucem  studiis  nostris  attulerunt  tune  nata  sunt.  In  deterius 
deinde  cotidie  data  res  est,"  complains  Seneca.31  As  has  been 
stated  already,  the  causes  of  the  speedy  decadence  of  oratory  at 
Rome  are  about  the  same  as  those  which  brought  about  its  decline 
in  Greece.  "  Sive  luxu  temporum,"  continues  Seneca, — "  nihil  enim 
tarn  mortiferum  ingeniis  quam  luxuria  est, — sive  cum  pretium 
pulcherrimae  rei  cecidisset,  translatum  est  omne  certamen  ad 
turpia  multo  honore  quaestuque  vigentia.  .  .  ."  The  turning- 
point  for  the  worse  should  be  placed  in  the  Augustan  period  with 
the  overthrow  of  republican  institutions,  as  in  Athens  the  down- 
fall of  liberty  drew  in  its  train  that  of  oratory  also,  for  true  elo- 
quence is  the  child  of  liberty  as  on  the  other  hand  it  nourishes  and 
supports  it.  There  no  longer  existed  any  material  to  kindle  the 
fires  of  eloquence.32  Order  and  peace  and  quiet, — even  if  the 
quiet  of  a  cemetery, — now  prevailed  at  Rome  in  place  of  the  former 

28  Jebb,  The  Attic  Orators  ii,  p.  445  ;  on  Hermagoras's  system  compare 
Thiele,  Hermagoras,  pp.  143  sq. 

29  Cf.  Susemihl,  Geschich.  der  gr.  Lift,  ii,  pp.  473  .  502  sq.;  Blass,  Die gr. 
Bereds.,  pp.  3  .  149  .  160. 

30  Cf.  Rohde,  Der  griech.  Roman,  p.  289. 
*l  Praefatio  Controv.  i,  6  sq. 

32  Cf.  Dialogus  de  oratorib.us  (ascribed  to  Tacitus)  c.  36:  "Magna  eloqu- 
entia  sicut  flamma  materia  alitur  et  motibus  excitatur  et  urendo  clarescit 
.  .  .  "  ;  c.  41 :  "  Quid  enim  (sc.  at  the  present  day  as  compared  with  the 
former  time  of  the  republic)  opus  est  longis  in  senatu  sententiis,  cum 
optimi  cito  consentiant?  quid  multis  apud  contionibus  cum  de  republica 
non  imperiti  at  multi  deliberent,  sed  sapientissimus  et  unus  .  . .  ?"  cc.  36-41 
are  all  extremely  interesting  on  this  point. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA.  13 

fierce  rivalries  and  contentions  of  parties  and  party  leaders.  And 
soon  despotism  on  the  one  hand  and  its  counterpart  servility  on 
the  other,  attained  such  proportions  as  to  stifle  all  noble  and  high- 
spirited  thought  and  action.  Seneca  complains  bitterly  over  the 
literary  auto-da-fe s  which  came  into  use  in  his  time  for  the  disci- 
pline of  refractory  minds.33  In  addition  to  this  the  prosperity 
and  wealth  which  came  to  the  Roman  empire  under  Augustus 
contributed  their  part  toward  obliterating  all  remnants  of  the  old 
Roman  simplicity  and  engendering  a  taste  for  superficial  splendor 
and  a  striving  after  display.34  A  lively  scientific  and  literary 
activity  did  indeed  spring  up  ;36  circles  were  formed  for  the  promo- 
tion of  culture  and  literary  taste ;  we  need  only  recall  Maecenas, 
This  age  in  the  mental  history  of  Rome  may  be  not  inaptly 
likened  to  that  of  Louis  the  Fourteenth  of  France.  But  what  this 
literary  activity  gained  in  breadth  it  lost  in  depth  and  earnestness 
of  purpose  ;  it  aimed  merely  at  the  brilliant,  the  piquant,  and  the 
interesting ;  it  was  marked  by  flippancy  and  entire  subordination 
of  matter  to  form.  This  change  in  the  spirit  of  Roman  literature 
exhibited  itself  in  the  evolution  of  that  diction  which  is  designated 
as  "  Silver  Latin."  The  vocabulary  became  changed ;  new  words 
and  phrases  were  invented  and  many  of  those  hitherto  in  use 
were  lost  or  rejected ;  the  syntax  was  simplified,  numerous  short 
sentences  replacing  a  less  number  of  long  ones  ;  the  use  of  abstract 
substantives  became  frequent ;  in  the  periodic  structure  parataxis 
took  the  place  of  hypotaxis;  natural  expressions  gave  way  to 
rhetorical  figures  ;  the  lines  separating  prose  and  poetry  became 
obliterated ;  objectivity  was  replaced  by  subjectivity  and  arbitrari- 
ness ;  sublimity  and  depth  of  diction  were  supplanted  by  an  arti- 
ficial elegance.  Of  all  this  the  rhetors  represented  in  the  works 
of  the  elder  Seneca  are  the  type,  and  Quintilian  in  vain  opposed 
it."  This  great  change  in  the  tendency  and  aims  of  Roman 
literature  manifested  itself  in  the  most  marked  degree  in  the  art 

38  Praef.  Contr.  x,  5  sq. :  "Effectum  est  enim  per  inimicos  ut  omnes  eius 
(sc.  T.  Labieni)  libri  comburerentur ;  res  nova  et  inusitata  supplicium  de 
studiis  sumi";  cf.  also  §7. 

34  Cf.  Hainmer,  Beitrdge  zu  den  19  grossen  quintilianischen  Declamationcn, 

P-3- 

35  Cf.    Bernhardy,    Grundriss  der  romischen  Litteratur,    p.  75.     Literary 
facts  as  well  as  explicit  testimonies  show  that  no  preceding  age  possessed 
more  susceptibility  to  fine,  sometimes  superfine,  form  or  a  more  cultivated 
taste. 

36  Cf.  Koerber,  Ueber  den  Rhetor  Seneca^  pp.  24  sq. 


14  THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

of  eloquence.  Naturally  so,  for  this  department  of  mental  activity 
can  thrive  and  reach  its  normal  development  only  in  a  state  of 
political  freedom,  and  this  no  longer  existed.  On  the  other  hand 
speech-making  and  speech-hearing  were  deeply  rooted  in  the 
Roman  nature.  Hence,  when  the  forum  became  dull,  speech-mak- 
ing retired  to  the  schoolroom  to  continue  there  a  shadowy  life. 
Rhetoric  supplanted  oratory,  rhetoricians  took  the  place  of  ora- 
tors, and  speaking  was  superseded  by  declaiming.37  Yet  another 
reason  for  the  development  of  these  schools  of  rhetoric  may  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  already  in  Cicero's  time  and  still  more  after- 
wards, jurisprudence  attained  at  Rome  an  importance  before 
unheard  of.  It  assumed  an  independent  position  and  treated 
rhetoric  as  it  had  been  treated  by  it — with  disregard.  The  orator 
when  in  court  found  himself  under  the  control  of  the  judge,  by 
whom  he  was  compelled  to  fully  realize  his  subordinate  position 
and  to  confine  his  discourse  closely  to  his  subject.38  Rhetoric, 
thus  driven  from  political  life  and  repressed  in  the  courts,  came 
to  be  treated  as  an  art  or  science  independent  of  all  others,  an 
end  in  itself,  its  value  consisting  in  the  formal  training  it  gave  the 
mind. 

37  Even  in  the  time  of  the  elder  Seneca,   when  the  rhetoricians  and  the 
rhetorical  schools  were  in  the  height  of  their  prosperity,  the  language  still 
distinguished   between   dicere  and  declamare,   as  also  between  orator  and 
rhetor  or  declamator.     Compare  Sen.,  Praef.  Controv.  i,  12:  "  Ipsa  decla- 
matio    apud    nullum    antiquum     auctorem    ante    Ciceronem    et    Calvum 
inveniri    potest,    qui    declamationem    a    dictione     distinguit;    ait    enim 
declamare   iam   se   non   mediocriter,  dicere  bene  ;  alterum  putat  domes- 
ticae  exercitationis  esse,  alterum  verae  dictionis  .  .  .  ";  Contr.  vii,  i,  20  : 
"  De  colore  inter  maximos  et  oratores  et  declamatores  disputatum  est.  .  . 
Pasianus    et    Albucius    et    praeter    oratores    magna    novorum    rhetorum 
manus  .  .  .";  Suas.  vi,  n  :  "Itaque  Cassius  Severus  aiebat  alios  decla- 
masse,  Varium  Geminum  vivum  consilium  dedisse." 

38  Cf.  Spengel,  Ueber  das  Studium,  etc.,  p.  25.     Tacitus,  Dialogtts  c.  19: 
"Qui  (sc.  indices)  vi  et  potestate,  non  iure  aut  legibus  cognoscunt,  nee 
accipiunt  tempora,   sed  constituunt,   nee  expectandum   habent   oratorem 
dura  illi  libeat  de   ipso  negotio   dicere,  sed  saepe  ultro  admovent  atque 
alio  transgredientem  revocant  at  festinare  se  testantur  "  ;  Quintilian,  Instit. 
Orat.  iv,  i,  72  "...  si  sit  praeparatus   satis  etiam  sine  hoc  index";  iv, 
5,  10 :  "  Festinat  enim  index  ad  id,  quod  potentissimum  est." 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA.  15 

II. — THE    ROMAN    RHETORICIANS. 

i.    Their  position  in  the  new  fabric  of  the  state. 

It  has  been  already  stated39  that  L.  Plotius  Gallus  was  the  first 
to  open  a  school  for  Latin  rhetoric  about  90  B.  C.  This  does  not 
of  course  imply  that  there  had  never  previously  been  instruction 
and  exercise  at  Rome  in  the  art  of  speech-making.  Thus  Lucius 
Praeconius  of  Lanuvium,  surnamed  Stilo,  although  not  a  profes- 
sional teacher,  had  gathered  about  him  ten  years  before  a  select 
circle  of  young  men  for  the  purpose  of  reading  old  authors  and 
probably  also  to  give  them  some  training  in  the  theory  and  prac- 
tice of  speech-making.*0  But  before  Blandus  no  native  Roman  of 
position  had  been  a  professional  teacher  of  rhetoric,  the  profession 
indeed  being  looked  upon  as  disgraceful  and  hence  practiced  only 
by  libertini.^  Plotius  found  many  imitators  and  followers.  In 
vain  had  the  censors  as  early  as  92  B.  C.  issued  an  edict  against 
these  schools.42  They  remained  henceforth  a  permanent  institu- 
tion of  the  Roman  Empire.  In  the  imperial  epoch  rhetorical 
schools  sprang  up  everywhere.43  It  was  for  the  interest  of  the 
rulers  to  favor  their  establishment  and  development,  inasmuch  as 
they  diverted  the  public  mind  from  the  great  constitutional 
changes  which  had  taken  place  and  caused  the  loss  of  public 
discussion  to  be  felt  less  keenly.  The  public  too  favored  these 
schools  because  in  them  dying  liberty  lingered  longer  than  in  the 
forum  and  the  senate,  which  were  under  the  immediate  control  of 
the  government.44  These  schools,  moreover,  met  the  demand  of 
the  times  for  a  general  and  broad  culture.  As  it  had  been  for- 
merly claimed  by  Isocrates  that  oratory  should  be  regarded  as 
uniting  in  itself  all  the  element  of  culture45  and  that  even  the  name 

39  See  above,  p.  10. 

40  Cf.  Mommsen,  Romische  Geschichte  ii,  p.  425. 

41  Cf.    Seneca,  Praef.    Contr.    ii,  5:    "  Qui    (sc.    Blandus)    primus   eques 
Romanus  Romae  docuit ;  ante  ilium  inter  libeitinos  praeceptores  pulcher- 
rimae  disciplinae  continebantur  et  minime  probabili  more  turpe  erat  docere 
quod  honestum  erat  discere." 

42 Cf.  Cicero,  DC  oratore  iii,  24,93;  Gellius,  Noctes  Att.  xv,  ii  ;  Tacitus 
Dial.  c.  35;  Suetonius,  De  clar.  rhet.  c.  I  ;  Cucheval,  Hist,  de  V  ttoq.  rom 
i,  pp.  224  sq. 

43  Cf.  Hulsebos,  De  educ.  et  inst.  apud  Kom.,  p.  109. 

44  Cf.  Morawski,  De  rhet.  lat.,  p.  16. 

.  (2)  5  sq.  39;  Havriy.  (4)  47-49. 


l6  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

of  philosophy  should  be  bestowed  upon  it,46  so  now  a  training  in 
the  art  of  rhetoric  was  considered  as  the  foundation  of  a  liberal 
education  and  the  fitting  preparation  for  the  higher  walks  of 
life.47  The  study  of  rhetoric  thus  held  nearly  the  same  place  as 
was  occupied  later  by  the  "  humaniora"  Even  an  ethical  force 
was  ascribed  to  it.*8  Seneca  relates49  that  Augustus  was  present 
together  with  Agrippa  at  a  declamation  of  Latro,  and  that  the 
rhetor  Gaius  Silo  was  also  heard  by  Augustus.50  Later,  chairs  of 
rhetoric  were  established  and  endowed  by  the  state.51  Vespasian 
was  the  first  to  do  this.52  Hadrian,  noted  for  his  Philhellenism, 
established  at  Rome  the  Athenaeum  which  was  henceforth  sup- 
ported by  the  emperors  and  which  possessed  a  chair  of  rhetoric.53 
The  emperors  themselves  entrusted  their  children  to  the  rhetor- 
ical schools  for  education.54  Marcus  Aurelius  attended  the 
lectures  of  Hermogenes  even  after  he  became  emperor.55  It  may 
be  fairly  assumed  that  most  of  the  large  cities  of  Italy  had  their 


46  Kara  TUV  oo<j).  (13)  I.  II  ;  Eovg.  (n),  I  ;  irepl  dvrtd.  (15)  270  sq.;  EAfV.  (66) 
6.  66.  Cf.  Blass,  Gesch.  der  attischen  Bereds.  ii,  pp.  26  sq. 

47  Seneca,  Praef.  Contr.  ii,  3,  thus  addresses  his  son  Mela  :  "  eloquentiae 
tantum  studeas  ;  facilis  ab  hac  in  omnes  artes  discursus  est  ;  instruit  etiam 
quos  non  sibi  exercet  "  ;  cf.  also  Theo.  Progymnasmata  (Rhetores  Graeci,  ed. 
Spengel,  ii,  70):  "77  ruv  irpoyvfj.vacfjidruv  daKtfGis  ov  fiovov  rotf  /ue^ovoi  pr)TO~ 
pevetv,  dA/la  KOI  el  nq  rj  TTOITJTUV  7}  Jioyorroiuv  r)  aXkuv  TIV&V  Aoyuv  dvvafjLiv  efte/iei 
fj.£Tax£ipi&Gdai.     eart  -yap  ravra  olovel  -&£/u,£Aia  Trda^  rrjs  ruv  hdyuv  \6eag  .  .  ." 

48  Cf.  Theo,  ibid.  60  :  "  Kai  /u.i)v  rj  6ta  rrjg  xpeias  ~yv/uvaaia  ov  /u,6vov  riva  6vva/uiv 
hoyuv  ep-yd&rai,   d/l/ld  nal  xP'riCT^VTl-  ^°f  £y"yv/u,va£o/j.£vuv  rj/uuv  roZf  ruv 
a.TTofy'de'yfj.aoiv."     Aristides,  Or*  45,  72  (ed.  Dindorf)  :  "  rerrdpuv  OVTUV  [to 
TJ)(;    apETTJg    (sc.  Qpovrjaeuc,    Gufypoovvris,    dmaioovvije,    dvdpda^)    cnravra    did 
pijToptitijs  TTETroirjTat,  /cat  oirep  kv  ou/uaGi  yvfJ.va0TiK.rj  /cat  iarptK^,  rodr'  kv  rr 

rotf  rwv  7T62.EUV  irpd-y/Ltaoi  Q&ivfrai  ;  "  cf.  also  Rohde,  Der  griech.  Roman,  p. 
297  foot  note. 

49  Contr.  ii,  4,  1  2. 

50  Contr.  x,  14.     Cf.  also  Sueton.,  De  clar.  rhet.  c.  87:  "  Recitantes  et 
benigne  et  patienter  (sc.  Augustus)  audiit  nee  tantum  carmina  et  historias 
sed  et  orationes  et  dialogos." 

51  Cf.  Hainmer,  Beitr.  zu  den  19  gross,  quintil.  Decl.,  pp.  5.  28  sq. 

52  Cf.  Sueton.,  Vesp.  c.  18  :  "Primus  e  fisco  Latinis  Graecisque  rheto- 
ribus  annua  centena  constituit."     Hulsebos,  De  tduc.  et  inst.  apud  Rom., 
pp.  101  sq. 

53  Cf.  Friedlander,  Darstellung  der  Litteraturgeschichte  Roms  iii,    p.  3  4; 
Rohde,  Der  griech.  Roman,  p.  291. 

54  Cf.  Rohde,  /.  c.;  Hainmer,  Beitr.  zu  den  19  gr.  quint.  Decl.,  p.  29. 

55  Cf.  Dio  Cassius,  Ixxi,  i,  2. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA.  I/ 

teachers  of  rhetoric.66  From  the  middle  of  the  first  century  A.  D. 
the  African  schools  also  assumed  importance  ;57  so  much  so  that 
by  the  time  of  Juvenal  the  best  advice  which  that  writer  would 
give  to  a  rhetor  desirous  of  making  his  fortune  was  that  he 
should  go  to  Africa.58  Thence  in  the  time  of  Hadrian  came 
Pronto  of  Cirta,59  who  had  so  long  and  so  triumphant  a  career  at 
Rome  as  pleader  and  rhetor:  "Orator,  consul,  teacher  of  two 
emperors,"  as  an  inscription  declares.60 

2.    Their  method  of  instruction. 

The  preparation  of  the  pupil  for  the  rhetorical  school  was  the 
task  of  the  grammarian,  whose  duty  it  was  to  drill  him  in  the 
forms  and  syntax  and  to  initiate  him  to  a  certain  extent  into  the 
national  literature.  The  grammarian,  however,  often  was  not 
content  with  this  important  but  humble  task  and  trespassed  on 
the  field  of  the  rhetorician.61  As  a  consequence  the  pupil  came 
from  the  grammarian  to  the  rhetorician  poorly  trained  in  the 
elements  of  language  and  literature.  In  the  rhetorical  school 
itself  the  training  was  a  gradual  progression  from  easy  exercises 
to  more  difficult.62  It  began  with  the  composition  of  narratives 
and  essays  on  given  themes  and  subjects  from  mythology,  epi- 
deictic  speeches  and  commonplaces,  as  on  vice,  virtue,  folly,  etc., 
monologues  of  historical  or  mythical  persons  reciting  the  reasons 
for  and  against  decision  (suasoriae].  As  the  last  and  most  diffi- 
cult stage  of  the  exercises,  use  was  made  of  fictitious  judicial  cases 
in  which  the  pupils  took  the  parts  of  plaintiff,  defendant  or  advo- 
cate (controversiae).  Obviously  also  the  delivery  and  the  training 
of  the  memory  were  not  neglected.  But  as  Quintilian  complains 
about  the  grammarians,  so  does  he  likewise  about  the  rhetors 
that  they  considered  it  beneath  their  dignity  to  trouble  themselves 
much  about  the  elementary  exercises  of  their  art  and  were  too 

56  Cf.  Friedlander,  Darst.    der   Lift.  Rom s  iii,   p.  394;    Rohde,  Der  gr. 
Roman,  p.   301.     On  the  prominence  of  the  schools  of  Gaul  cf.  Hainmer, 
Beitr.  zu  den  19 gr.  quint.  Decl.,  pp.  29  sq.;  Morawski,  De  rhet.  Lat  ,  p.  I. 

57  Cf.  Monceaux,  Les  Africains,  pp.  58  sq. 

58  Cf.  Sat.  vii,  147-9. 

59 Cf.  Monceaux,  Les  Africains,  pp.  211,  sq.;  Simcox,  Lat.  Lit.,  p.  243. 
«°Cf.  Orelli,  Inscr.  Lat.  n,  76. 

61  Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  ii,i,  I  sq.;  "  Rhetores  utique  nostri  suas  partes 
omiserunt  et  grammatici  alienas  occupaverunt." 
62Quintil.,  ibid.  i.  9. 
2 


l8  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

fond  of  hurrying  their  pupils  into  the  more  advanced  stage  of 
declamations.63  As  regards  their  manner  of  imparting  instruction 
in  the  rhetorical  art,  some  masters  did  all  the  talking  themselves, 
/.  e.  they  declaimed  and  the  students  merely  listened ;  others 
began  with  a  recitation  which  was  followed  by  a  discussion 
between  teacher  and  students ;  while  still  others  allowed  the 
pupils  to  declaim.64  The  declamationes  (coniroversiae  and  suaso- 
riae)  of  the  rhetoricians  of  the  imperial  period  have  become  pro- 
verbial for  speech  marked  by  affectation,  insincerity,  hollow 
pathos,  fancifulness,  inanity  of  thought  and  similar  characteristics. 
They  did  not  make  their  appearance  endowed  with  these  qualities 
all  at  once.  They  have  quite  a  long  history,  and  that  history 
confirms  the  statement  previously  made  that  it  seems  to  be 
inherent  in  the  nature  of  artistic  speech  to  go  astray  again  and 
again  from  the  path  of  naturalness  and  truthfulness. 

The  introduction  of  recitations  on  fictitious  themes  as  an  exer- 
cise in  oratory  is  ascribed  either  to  Demetrius  Phalereus,66  or 
to  Aeschines  while  living  in  exile  at  Rhodes.66  But  it  may  be 

63  Ibid,  i,  2:  "  Nam  et  illi  declamare  modo  et  scientiam  declamandi  ac 
facultatem  tradere  officii  sui  ducunt." 

64  Cf.  Seneca,  Controv.  ix,  2,  23  :  "  Neque  enim  illi  (sc.  Latroni)  mos  erat 
quemquam  audire  declamantem  ;  declamabat  ipse  tantum  et  aiebat  se  non 
esse  magistrum,  sed  exemplum  ;   nee  ulli  alii  contigisse  scio  quam  apud 
Graecos  Niceti,  apud  Romanes  Latroni,  ut  discipuli  non  audiri  desidera- 
rent,  sed  content!  essent  audire  ":  cf.  also  Koerber,  Ueber  den  Rhetor  Sen., 
pp. 30  sq.;  Friedlander, Darst.  der  Litt.Roms\\\,  pp.  388-90;  Mommsen,  Rom. 
Gesch.  ii,  p.  427  ;  Hainmer,  Beitr.  zu  den  19  gr.  quint.  Decl.y  p.  6 ;  Rohde, 
Der  griech.  Roman ,  pp.  295  sq. 

65 Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  ii,  4,  41  :  "Nam  fictas  ad  imitationem  fori 
•onsiliorumque  materias  apud  Graecos  dicere  circa  Demefrium  Phalereum 
institutum  fere  constat.  An  ab  ipso  id  genus  exercitationis  sit  inventum, 
ut  alio  quoque  libro  sum  confessus,  parum  comperi ;  sed  ne  hi  quidem 
qui  hoc  fortissime  affirmant,  ullo  satis  idoneo  auctore  nituntur." 

66Philostratus  who  flourised  in  the  first  half  of  the  third  century  A.  D. 
in  his  Vitae  Sophistarum  i,  1.  18  (ed.  Kayser),  makes  Aeschines,  the  founder 
of  a  Second  Sophistic  which  invented  the  standard  characters  of  the  decla- 
mations,— the  rich,  the  poor,  the  brave,  the  tyrant,  (sc.  rj  devrepa  aofytaTiitrj) 
rovf  TrivT]raq  vTrervTruTaro  /cat  TOV£  rrtiovaiovs  /cat  rovq  apiarov^  /cat  roi)f  rvpdwovg  /cat 
rdf  £tf  bvofia  viro"d'Eaei(;,  s(j>'  df  ?/  laropla  ayet,  i]p^£  6z  rijg  JJ.EV  'apxaiorepac;  T'o/oytaf  6 
kv  9erra/loZf,  T%  6e  devrepag  A.iax'LV*K  o  'Arpo//^rov,  r&v  fj,si>  'A-&f/vij<n 
eKTTsauv  Kapia  6£  kvofj,i^i]caq  /cat  Tddw  /cat  ^erejetpt^ovro  rdf  airo-&eoei<; 
ol  /lev  OTTO  Aicx'i-vov  /card  TCXVJJV  ol  de  CLTTO  Topyiov  /card  TO  So£av  ;  cf.  also  Quintil., 
Instit.  Orat.  xii,  10,  19  :  "  Aeschines  enim,  qui  hunc  (sc.  Rhodum)  exilio 
delegerat  locum,  intulit  eo  studia  Athenarum  ..." 


THE  THEMES  TREATED  BY  THE  ELDER  SENECA.      IQ 

truthfully  said  that  ever  since  eloquence  was  treated  as  an  art, 
some  kind  of  exercises  has  been  practised  in  connection  with 
it.  Protagoras  caused  his  pupils  to  learn  by  heart  examples 
of  such  eloquence  as  were  most  frequently  used.  Aristotle  in 
Cicero's  Brutus  mentions  these  commonplaces  as  having  been 
composed  in  writing.67  In  a  similar  manner  Gorgias  taught  his 
pupils  by  models,  especially  such  as  either  exalted  or  depreciated 
things.68  In  fact,  all  orators  in  all  times  have  been  obliged  to 
train  themselves  for  appearance  in  public  by  some  sort  of  exercise 
in  declaiming,  only  they  have  made  a  practice  of  declaiming  on 
the  same  themes  on  which  they  were  afterward  to  speak  or  write, 
while  the  ^Urai  which  arose  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  B.  C. 
were  on  fictitious  subjects  with  characters  which  became  stereo- 
typed. The  Peripatetic  and  Academic  schools  had  exercises  in 
diesis  and  loci  communes  of  different  kinds.69  The  veteran  were 
specially  favored  and  brought  into  vogue  by  the  Asian  rhetors, 
who  disdained  all  theoretical  preparation  and  all  method  and 
system  in  the  exercise  of  the  art  of  oratory,  caring  only  to  acquire 
and  practise  it  as  a  knack; 70  so  that  the  immediate  origin  of  the 
declamations  in  the  imperial  period  is  to  be  found  among  the 
Asians.71  We  have  an  interesting  notice  in  Seneca  :72  "  Declamabat 
autem  Cicero  non  quales  nunc  controversias  dicimus,  ne  tales 
quidem,  quales  ante  Ciceronem  dicebantur,  quas  thesis  vocabant. 

67  Cicero,  Brutus  xii,  46:  "  Itaque  ait  Aristoteles  .  .  .  scriptasque 
fuisse  et  paratas  a  Protagora  verum  illustrium  disputationes,  quae  nunc 
communes  appellantur  loci." 

68 Ibid.  47  :  "Quod  idem  fecisse  Gorgiam,  cum  singularum  rerum  laudes 
vituperationesque  conscripsisset ;  quod  iudicaret  hoc  oratoris  esse  maxime 
proprium,  rem  augere  posse  laudando  vituperandoque  rursus  adfligere"; 
cf.  also  Aristotle,  Sophist.  Elench.  c.  34,  6.  36;  Quintilian,  Inst.  Oral,  iii, 
i,  12  sq.;  Blass,  Gesch.  der  att.  Bereds.  i,  p.  54. 

69  Cf.  Quintilian,  Instit.  Orat.  xii,  2,  25  :    "  Academiam    quidam    utilissi- 
mam  credunt,  quod  mos  in  utramque  partem  disserendi  ad  exercitationem 
forensium  causarum  proxime  accedat.  .  .   .     Peripatetici  studio  quoque  se 
quodam  oratorio  iactant.     Nam  theses  dicere  exercitationis  gratia  fere  est 
ab  iis  institutum";  Cicero,  Orator  xiv,  46:  "  Haec  igitur  quaestio  a  pro- 
priis  personis  et  temporibus  ad  universi  generis  orationem  traducta  appel- 
latur  #/-<7£f.     In  hac  Aristoteles  adolescentes  non  ad  philosophorum  morem 
tenuiter  disserendi,  sed  ad  copiam  rhetorum  in  utramque  partem,  ut  orna- 
tius  et  uberius  dici  possit,  exercuit." 

70  Cf.  Blass,  Die  griech.  Bcreds.,  pp.  55  sq. 

71  Cf.  Blass,  /.  c.,  p.  60;  Jebb,  The  Attic  Orators  ii,  p.  447. 
nPrae/.  Contr.  i,  12. 


2O  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

Hoc  enim  genus  materiae,  quo  nos  exercemur,  adeo  novum  est, 
ut  nomen  quoque  eius  novum  sit.  Controversias  nos  dicimus : 
Cicero  causas  vocabat.  Hoc  vero  alterum  nomen  Graecum 
quidem,  sed  in  Latinum  ita  translatum,  ut  pro  Latino  sit,  scho- 
lastica,  controversia  multo  recentius  est,  sicut  ipsa  'declamatio' 
apud  nullum  antiquum  auctorem  ante  Ciceronem  et  Calvum 
inveniri  potest,  qui  declamationem  a  dictione  distinguit ;  ait  enim 
declamare  iam  se  non  mediocriter,  dicere  bene,  alterum  putat 
domesticae  exercitationis  esse,  alterum  verae  actionis.  Modo 
nomen  hoc  prodiit ;  nam  et  studium  ipsum  nuper  celebrari 
coepit."  This  passage  will  be  referred  to  more  fully  later,  but 
here  the  following  conclusions  may  be  drawn  from  it:  Before 
Cicero's  time  not  only  pupils  in  the  schools  declaimed  but  also 
public  orators,  at  their  homes  however,  as  an  exercise  and  prep- 
aration for  their  appearance  in  public ;  at  the  time  of  Cicero  and 
Calvus  "declamare"  became  a  special  term  for  a  kind  of  recitation 
distinguished  from  the  delivery  of  a  speech,  "dictio,  dicere,"  while 
the  "controversia,"  the  equivalent  of  the  Greek  "#&»?,"  formed 
the  latest  phase  of  declaiming.73  We  may  add  that  the  writing 
of  compositions  was  recommended  as  the  most  effective  means  of 
obtaining  a  good  style,74  and  also  the  paraphrasing  of  both  prose 
and  poetry,75  as  well  as  translation  from  Greek  into  Latin.76 

73  Cf.  Bonnell,  De  mut.  sub  prim.  Caes.  Eloq.,  pp.  16  sq.  Bonnell  remarks 
that  the  word  "  declamare  "  does  not  occur  before  Cicero.  Its  simple  and 
original  meaning  was  "  clamando  vel  vehementer  dicendo  aliquid  prodere." 
Cf.  Cicero,  Verr.  iv,  66:  "  Ille  autem  insanus,  qui  pro  isto  vehementissime 
contra  me  declamasset."  Even  after  the  word  had  been  adopted  to  express 
exercise  in  oratory,  "declamatio"  in  Cicero's  time  was  used  for  the  action 
of  declaiming,  "  declamandi  actio  "  and  only  later  came  to  signify  a  work 
"  opus,"  as  opposed  to  an  oration  delivered  in  court. 

14  Cf.  Cicero,  Dt  orat.  i,  33,  150  :  Caput  autem  est  .  .  .  quam  plurimum 
scribere. 

75  Cf.  Cicero,  ibid.  154  :  "...  solitum  esse  uti  sciebam  (sc.  C.  Carbonem), 
ut  aut  versibus  propositis  quam  maxime  gravibus  aut  oratione  aliqua  lecta 
ad  eum  finem,  quem  memoria  possem  comprehendere,  earn  rem  ipsam,  quam 
legissem,  verbis  aliis  maxime  possem  lectis  pronuntiarem." 

76 Cf.  Cicero,  ibid.  155:  "  Postea  mihi  placuit,  eoque  sum  usus  adules- 
cens,  ut  summorum  oratorum  Graecas  orationes  explicarem.  Quibus  lectis 
hoc  adsequebar,  ut,  cum  ea,  quae  legeram  Graece,  Latine  redderem,  non 
solum  optimis  verbis  uterer  et  tamen  usitatis,  sed  etiam  expiimerem  quae- 
dam  verba  imitando,  quae  nova  nostris  essent,  dum  modo  essent  idonea"; 
cf.  also  Quintil.,  Insl.  Orat.  x,  5,  2  sq.:  Vertere  Graeca  in  Latinum  veteres 
nostri  oratores  optimum  iudicabant. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA.  21 

a.  Various  kinds  of  declamations  in  the  imperial  period. — As 
the  methods  of  teaching  varied  so  also  did  the  exercises  em- 
ployed.77 The  passage  quoted  from  Seneca78  gives  the  key  to 
their  division.  He  says  :  "  Declamabat  autem  Cicero  non  quales 
nunc  controversias  dicimus,  ne  tales  quidem,  quales  ante  Cice- 
ronem  dicebantur,  quas  thesis  vocabant ....  Controversias  nos 
dicimus :  Cicero  causas  vocabat."  It  would  thus  seem  that  we 
should  distinguish  three  periods  of  the  declamation:  i.  In  the 
time  previous  to  Cicero  there  were  declamations  on  $^<nc.  The 
term  was  introduced  into  rhetoric  by  Hermagoras,  who  divided 
the  entire  material  of  the  speaker  into  fUcis  and  faodefftt;,  which 
Cicero  renders  by  "  quaestio  "  and  "causa"  respectively.  The 
difference  between  them  is  that  the  #£<r^  is  the  discussion  of  a  case 
in  a  general,  indefinite  manner,  without  attaching  it  to  definite  per- 
sons and  circumstances,  while  the  w;rrf#e<nc  on  the  other  hand  has 
them,  so  that  it  becomes  more  special,  individual,  and  concrete.79 

17  Cf.  Suetonius,  De  clar.  rhet.  c.  i  :    "Ratio  dicendi  nee  una  omnibus." 

™Praef.  Contr.  i,  12. 

79  Cf.  Cicero,  De  inventione  i,  6,  8  :  "Nam  Hermagoras  quidem  nee  quid 
dicat  attendere  nee  quid  policeatur  intelligere  videtur,  qui  oratoris  mate- 
riam  in  causam  et  quaestionem  dividat.  Causam  esse  dicat  rem,  quae 
habebat  in  se  controversiam  in  dicendo  positam  cum  personarum  ceitarum 
interpositione  ;  quam  nos  quoque  oratori  dicimus  attributam  .  ..  Quaes- 
tionem autem  appellet,  quae  habeat  in  se  controversiam  in  dicendo  posi- 
tam sine  certarum  personarum  interpositione  ad  hunc  modum  :  Ecquid  sit 
bonum  praeter  honestatem  ?  verine  sint  sensus  ?  quae  sit  mundi  forma? 
quae  sit  solis  magnitude  ?"  Cf.  Thiele,  Hermagoras^  pp.  30  sq.  Thiele 
says  that  Hermagoras  understood  by  dims  any  C^r^a  (=  rrpoptyjua)  of  a 
general  nature.  "He  recommended  to  the  orator  to  speak  not  only 
on  definite  judicial  cases  or  on  definite  questions  of  internal  or  exter- 
nal politics,  but  also  on  themes  which  were  not  of  a  political  nature 
and  on  abstract  questions,  so  that  one  might  be  a  pt/rup,  and  a  aotpiorfa 
at  once.  By  this,  rhetoric  seemed  to  acknowledge  a  desire  to  make  itself 
mistress  of  the  highest  and  most  important  problems  which  philosophy  had 
put  forward."  Hence  the  criticism  of  Cicero,  cf.  De  orat.  1,31,38;  ii,  10, 
41  sq. ;  19,  78  ;  31,  133;  iii,  28,  109.  Orator  xiv,  46  previously  quoted.  Cf. 
also  Quintil.,  Inst.  Orat.  iii,  5,  5  sq.  :  "  Item  convenit  quaestiones  esse 
aut  infinitas  aut  finitas.  Infinitae  sunt,  quae  remotis  personis  ettemporibus 
et  locis  ceterisque  similibus  in  utramque  partem  tractantur,  quod  Graeci 
•&eatv  dicunt,  Cicero  propositum,  ....  alii  quaestiones  philosopho  conve- 
nientes,  .  .  .  Finitae  autem  sunt  ex  complexu  rerum,  personarum,  tem- 
porum,  ceterorumque ;  quae  vTrodsois  a Graecis  dicuntur,  causae  a  nostris.  -In 
his  omnis  quaestio  videtur  circa  respersonasqueconsistere."  The  render- 


22     THE  THEMES  TREATED  BY  THE  ELDER  SENECA. 

The  ftifft-z  then  embraced  themes  on  anything  and  everything,  and 
to  the  same  category  of  themes  of  a  general  and  indefinite  nature 
belong  also  the  loci  communes™  which  were  much  in  favor  at 
Rome  in  the  early  period  on  account  of  their  simplicity.81 

2.  About  the  time  of  Cicero  arose  the  Mfteais  (causae),  z.  £.,  as 
stated  in  note  79,  exercises  on  specialized  cases,  with  the  intro- 
duction of  definite  persons  and  circumstances;  they  were  formed 
from  real  life,  either  in  its  daily  routine  in  the  courts,  or  taken  from 
history  which  included  also  mythology.82  The  causae  also  included 
such  exercises  as  were  known  later  by  the  name  of  suasoriae,  for 
which  history  and  mythology  offered  ample  material.83 

3.  In  the  imperial  period,  although  they  may  not  have  been 
entirely  unknown  before  Augustus,84  there  came  into  vogue  decla- 
mations on  entirely  fictitious  themes  taken  from  the  realm  of  the 
imagination ;  of  these  we  have  specimens  in  the  Controversiae  of 
Seneca   and    the   declamations  which  bear  the  name   of  Quin- 
tilian.86 

ing  "  propositum  "  for  -&eaif  is  used  by  Cicero  in  Topica  21,  79:  Depart, 
orat.  i,  4  :  "  consultatio  "  ;  18,  61  :  "  propositum  "  again;  both  combined 
in  De  orat.  iii,  28,  109  :  "  quasi  propositaconsultatio."  Of  the  definitions 
of  the  Greek  rhetoricians  ;  that  of  Theo  in  his  Tcpoyv/j-ma^ara  (Spengel,  Rhet. 
Gracci\\,  120)  seems  to  contain  essentially  the  words  of  Hermagoras  him- 
self (cf.  Thiele,  Hcrmagoras,  p.  28):  "deoi^  eorlv  eTtiaK^i^  'AoyLnrj  a/Li<j)i£- 
firjTrjaiv  evdexo/Lievq  avev  Trpoo&Truv  upta/usvuv  /cat  Trdafjf  TreptCTaaeuc;.  As  an  illus- 
tration Theo  gives  (Spengel  ii,  61)  :  olov  #fcr/f  pev  el  TrpocrjKet  TrofaopKov/uevotz 
arpdrev/Lta  TT£fj.Ttetv  dg  -rjv  vTrepopiav,  VTro-d-eaig  6e  el  'A^vaioig  -rrpoaqKei  -rro/uopKov- 
uevoi£  VTTO  TLe?i07rovvqaiuv  elg  2t/ce/liav  orpaTev/na  irs/uTretv  ";  cf.  Alexander  (Spen- 
gel iii,  i)  ;  Hermogenes  Trpoyiyzv.  (Spengel  ii  17).  For  the  distinction 
between  "quaestiones  cognitionis"  (theoretical) and  "quaestiones  actionis" 
(practical)  cf.  Cicero,  De  orat.  iii,  29,  in  sq, ;  Topica  21,  81,  and  Piderit's 
Introduction  to  Cicero,  De  orat.  ii,  $  2. 

80  Cf.  Quintil.  Inst.  Orat.  ii,  4,  22  sq.,  27-40  ;  Cicero,  De  orat.  iii,  28,  109. 

81  Cf.  Mass.  Die griech.  Bereds.,  p.  no. 

82  Cf.  Cicero,  De  orat.  i,  33,  149  ;  "  Equidem  probo  ista,  Crassus  inquit, 
quae  vos  facere  soletis,  ut,  causa  aliqua  posita  consimili  causarum  earum, 
quae  in  forum  deferuntur,  dicatis  quam  maxime  ad  veritatem  accommo- 
date";  Suetonius,  De  clar.  rhet.  c.   i;   Cicero,   De  inventions  i,  49,  92; 
cf.  also  Friedlander,  Darstellung  der  Lift.  Rom  iii,  p.  388. 

83 Cf.  Blass,  Diegr.  Bereds.,  p.  in. 

**  Ma1.,  p.  1 08. 

85  Cf.  Bonnell,  De  mut.  sub  prim.  Cats,  eloq.,  p.  17.  Bonnell  observes  that 
the  word  "suasoria"  does  not  occur  at  all  in  Cicero,  while  "  controversia  " 
occurs  only  with  the  meaning  of  dispute  or  quarrel,  strife  ("sed  rixam  et 
pugnam  significans  "). 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA.  23 

b.  Character  of  the  declamations  of  the  imperial  period. — It  is 
well  known  that  the  chief  characteristics  of  the  declamations  in 
vogue  during  the  imperial  period  were  that  they  were  not  practi- 
cal, that  they  ignored  real  life,  disregarded  truth,  and  indulged  in 
the  paradoxical  and  absurd.  "  The  rhetorical  school,"  says 
Friedlander,86  ''created  for  itself  in  the  course  of  time  its  own  fan- 
tastic world,  which  was  separated  from  life  by  a  wide  chasm  over 
which  no  bridge  was  leading."  This  rhetorical  departure  was 
not  an  absolutely  new  one.  As  remarked  above,  artistic  speech 
seems  to  have  always  had  a  tendency  to  deviate  from  verity  and 
naturalness.  Examples  may  be  found  earlier  than  Asianism. 
Thus  Corax  of  Syracuse,  who  lived  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth 
century  B.  C.,  is  alleged  to  have  defined  rhetoric  as  izsiftooq 
dy^aYioYoq,  and  his  disciple  and  successor  Tisias,  the  first  to  write 
on  the  technique  of  rhetoric,87  teaches  in  regard  to  the  finding  of 
arguments  that  the  orator  is  not  to  concern  himself  about  the 
truth  but  to  be  content  with  the  efocfe,  to  make  anything  appear 
probable  or  improbable  just  as  it  suits  his  interest.88  Protagoras 
promised  to  teach  rov  i]rrw  Myov  xpeimo  Trojelv.89  The  u  rfyvy  "  of 
Anaximenes  was  openly  proclaimed  to  have  no  other  object  than 
to  furnish  any  one  who  followed  it,  be  he  right  or  wrong,  with  the 
means  to  defeat  his  adversary  even  if  the  latter  were  indisputably 
in  the  right,  and  to  deceive  the  judge.90  "Many  a  celebrated 
oration  of  antiquity,"  says  Spengel,91  "  is  nothing  else  than  an 
incontestable  proof  that  external  splendor  and  brilliancy  con- 
cealed the  truth  by  the  appearance  of  truth."  The  Tetralogies 
of  Antiphon  (orations  xiii-xv)  exhibit  in  their  arguments  much 
sophistical  casuistry  and  chicanery.  We  find  oratory  constantly 

86  Darstellung  der  Litt.  Roms  iii,  p.  391. 

87 Cf.  Cicero,  De  inventions  ii,  6:  "Ac  veteres  quidem  scriptores  artis 
usque  a  principe  illo  atque  inventore  Tisia  .  .  .  ";  Plato,  Phaedr.  2673. 
273a  £.;  Arist.,  Rhet.  ii,  24  (Spengel,  Rhet.  gr.  i,  116  sq.).  The  work  is 
referred  to  as  that  of  Corax. 

88Cf.  Aristotle,  Rhet.  ii,  24  (Spengel,  Rhet.  Gr.  i,  167)  :  "  Qaiverat  pev  avv 
afj,(j)QT£pa  £LK.6vTa,  eoTi  6e  TO  ju,ev  SIKO^  TO  6s  ov%  aTr/icjf,  d/l/l'  uGTtep  eiprjTai..''1  He 
illustrates  by  an  example  ;  cf.  also  Spengel,  Ueber  das  Studium,  etc.,  p.  8. 

89 Cf.  Plato,  Phaedr.  26ya;  Arist.,  Rhet.  ii,  24  (Spengel,  Rhet.  Gr.  i,  167); 
Aristophanes,  Clouds,  112-15;  Gellius,  Noct.  Alt.  v,  3,  7  ;  Diogenes  Laer- 
tius,  9,  52  j  Socrates  also  was  charged  with  this,  cf.  Plato,  Apology  igb. 

90  Cf.  Spengel,  Ueber  das  Studium,  etc.,  p.  9. 

^  Ibid.  p.  14,  cf.  the  numerous  examples  in  illustration  of  this  observa- 
tion, pp.  14-16. 


24  THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

applying  itself  to  futile  discussions  and  absurd  and  perverse  para- 
doxes. Pericles  is  said  to  have  engaged  in  discussion  with  Prota- 
goras an  entire  day  on  the  following  case :  A  Pentathlete  in  the 
races  inadvertently  killed  with  his  spear  the  Thessalian  Spitinos ; 
the  question  was,  who  was  the  author  of  the  accident :  The  Pen- 
tathlete because  he  hurled  the  spear,  or  those  in  charge  of  the 
race  because  they  arranged  it  in  such  a  manner,  or  finally  the 
spear  itself  because  it  passed  in  such  a  way  as  to  hit  the  unfortu- 
nate Spitinos.92  Isocrates  complains  of  those  composers  of 
epideictic  speeches  who  selected  the  most  paradoxical  topics 
for  their  subjects.93  Thus  Polycrates  (born  before  436  B.  C.) 
composed  speeches  in  defence  of  Busiris  and  in  accusation  of 
Socrates,94  eulogies  on  Clytaemnestra,96  on  mice,96  pots,  and  voting 
pebbles.97  Others  praised  the  lot  of  beggars  and  exiles,98  made  a 
hero  of  Paris,99  or  selected  salt  and  drinking-vessels  as  objects  of 
encomium.100  Among  the  Romans  we  find  traces  of  these  exer- 
cises in  Cornificius  and  Cicero.101  With  the  rhetoricians  of  the 
imperial  epoch  such  exercises  became  the  rule  and  what  is  of 
more  importance  still,  not  exercises  as  a  means  preparatory  to 
cases  in  real  life,  which  was  their  import  even  with  the  Asian 
orators,  but  they  came  to  be  regarded  as  an  end  in  themselves.102 
As  such  they  attained  an  extraordinary  importance.  Life  in  the 
forum  and  in  the  courts  was  considered  as  a  trade,  to  which  were 
attached  all  the  evils  of  greed  and  ambition ;  the  declamations  on 
the  other  hand  were  considered  as  purely  scientific  and  promoting 
the  cultivation  of  the  mind.  Pliny103  says  of  Isaeus,  his  contempo- 

92  Cf.  Plutarch,  Pericles  c.  35. 

93  'E/lfVT?  ( 10)  I  f . :  "  £id  rivet;  ol  fj.e~ya  typovovotv,  rjv  vKO'&eGiv  arorrov  nal  Trapddogov 
TTOLTjcafiEvot  TTEftl   TavTTjs   aveKTug  eiKslv   dvvjj'&uat  K.  T.  V;  Bovf.  (u)  49  ;    cf. 
Spengel,  Ueber  das  Studium,  etc.,  p.  17.     An  example  of  this  fictitious  ora- 
tory by  Lysias  is  given  in  Plato's  Phaedr.  231  A-234  C. 

94  Cf.  Isocrates,  Bovf.  (n),  4  sq. 

95  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  ii,  17,  4. 

96  Aristotle,  Rhet.  ii,  24  (Spengel,  Rhet.  Graec.  i,  165). 

97  Cf.  Alexander  Rhetor,  Spengel  iii,  3. 

98  Cf.  Isocrates  'EAfw?  (10),  8. 

99  Cf.  Aristotle,  Rhet.  ii,  24  (Spengel,  Rhet.  Graec,  i,  165). 

100  Cf.  Plato,  Symp.  177^ 

101  Cf.  Cicero,  De  invent,  ii,    40,  118:   "Meretrix   coronam    auream    ne 
habeto;  si  habuerit  publica  esto." 

102  Cf.  Blass,  Die  griech.  Bereds.,  pp.  60  sq. 
mEpist.  ii,  3. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA.  25 

rary:  "Annum  sexagesimum  excessit  et  adhuc  scholasticus 
tantum  est;  quo  genere  hominum  nihil  aut  simplicius  autsincerius 
aut  melius;  nos  enim,  qui  in  foro  verisque  litibus  terimur,  multum 
malitiae  quamvis  nolimus  addiscimus,  schola  et  auditorium,  ut 
ficta  causa,  ita  res  inermis,  innoxia  est  nee  minus  felix  senibus 
praesertim."10*  As  regards  the  subject-matter  of  the  controversial 
of  Seneca  and  the  declamationes  of  the  pseudo-Quintilian,  all  the 
themes  are  taken  from  the  domain  of  jurisprudence.  This  seemed 
the  least  dangerous  ground  for  a  display  of  rhetorical  pyrotech- 
nics under  an  autocratic  rule.  There  was  the  additional  advan- 
tage that  these  subjects  allowed  a  great  variety  of  interpretation 
and  argument  and  afforded  opportunity  for  a  display  of  rhetorical 
art.105  But  aside  from  the  judicial  formula  to  which  the  treatise  is 
attached  all  is  imaginary.106  Many  of  the  cases  on  which  the  judi- 
cial discussions  are  based,  those  for  instance  bearing  on  tyrants 
and  tyrannicide,107  have  no  application  to  Roman  life,  and  most  of 
them  are  unnatural,  extravagant,  absurd  and  not  infrequently 
indecent.  Of  the  74  themes  in  Seneca's  Controversiae,  19  have  to 

104  Cf.    Spengel,   Gelehrte  Anzeigen  der  bayrischen  Akademie  der   Wissen- 
schaften  xlvii  (1858),  pp.  10  sq. 

105  Cf.  Latro  in  Seneca,  Controv.  ix,  4,  9  :  "  In  lege  .  .  .  nihil  excipitur,  sed 
multa,  quamvis  non  excipiantur,  intelleguntur  et  scriptum  legis  angustum, 
interpretatio  diffusa  est";  cf  also  Koerber,  Ueber  den  Rhetor  Seneca,  p.  37. 

106  Cf.  some  of  the  themes  :  Seneca,  Contr.   i,  I  :  Liberi  parentes  alant 
aut  vinciantur ;  i,  2  :    Sacerdos   casta   ex  castis,   pura   e   puris  sit.;    i,   5: 
Rapta  raptoris  aut  mortem  aut  indotas  nuptias  optet ;  Quintilian,  Declam. 
ccxliv  :    Qui   depositum  infitiatus  fuerit,   quadruplum   solvat,  etc.     Petro- 
nius,  Sat.  i  (directed  against  the  rhetoricians)  11.  10  sqq.  enumerates  some  of 
the  subjects  treated   in   the   rhetorical  schools  :   "  Piratas  cum  catenis  in 
litore  stantes  ;  tyrannos  edicta  scribentes,  quibus  imperent  filiis,  ut  patrum 
suornm  capita  praecidant ;  responsa  in  pestilentiam  data,  ut  virgines  tres 
aut  plures  immolentur"  ;  Tacitus,  Dial.  c.  35:  "  Sic  fit,  ut  tyrannicidarum 
praemia  aut  vitiatarum  electiones  aut  pestilentiae  remedia  aut  incesta  mat- 
rum  aut  quidquid  in  schola  cotidie  agitur,  in  foro  vel   raro  vel  nunquam, 
ingentibus  verbis  persequantur  "  ;  cf.  also  Juvenal,  Sat.  vii,  150  sq.  ;  Quin- 
tilian, Instit.    Orat.   ii,    10,    3-5.     Quintilian   mentions  also  the  "  magos," 
which  must  have  been  a  later  addition  to  the  repertoire  of  the  rhetoricians, 
for  in   Seneca  they  do  not  yet  occur  ;  cf.  Simcox,   Latin  Literature,   pp. 
433  sq.  (c.  viii). 

107  Cf.   Seneca,  Contr.   ii,  5.     iii,  6;    Quintilian,  Declam.  ccxliii,  cclxix, 
cclxxi,  etc,;  also  Seneca,  Contr.  v,  3:   Pater  pancratiastae. 


26  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

do  with  immoral  relations,108  7  with  tyrants,109  7  with  poisoning  or 
attempts  at  it,110  14  with  disinheriting  children  (abdicatio).111 
Others  are  no  less  unnatural  and  perverse.  Fictitious,  even 
impossible,  relations  and  circumstances  are  presupposed ;  the  par- 
ties are  placed  in  the  strongest  possible  conflicts  of  equally  sacred 
duties  and  strong  emotions  and  sympathies,  and  are  made  to  do 
or  order  to  be  done  the  most  monstrous  things.112  Many  of  the 
cases  treated  in  the  Controversiae  and  Declamationes  were  proba- 
bly analogous  to  scandalous  occurrences  in  real  life  in  decadent 
Rome.  Compare  for  instances  Tacitus,  Annales  ii,  74;  iii,  i,  on 
the  poisoner  Matina;  iv,  i,  the  rumor  about  Seianus,  Tiberius,  and 
Drusus;  iv,  22,  on  the  murder  of  his  wife  by  Plautius  Silvanus ;  xiv, 
44.113  But  in  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  rhetoricians  of  this 
period  turned  away  from  the  affairs  of  real  life  with  a  certain 
haughty  disgust.  "De  magnis  maiora  loqui"11*  seems  to  have 
been  their  motto,  and  to  them  the  equivalent  of  "  magna  "  was 
the  uncommon  and  the  bizarre.115  Such  fictitious  themes  on  cases 
frequently  of  a  revolting  and  abhorrent  nature,  required  in  their 
treatment  an  extraordinary  and  constant  straining  and  forcing  of 
ideas  and  language,  in  order  to  hold  the  attention  of  an  idle  and 
blas6  audience  which  had  no  other  interest  than  diversion  and 
distraction.  The  fact  that  the  same  subjects  were  treated  by  sev- 
eral rhetoricians,  spurred  them  to  do  their  utmost  in  subtleties 

108 i,  2,  3,  4,  5,  7  ;    ii,  3,  4,  7  ;    iii,  5  ;    iv,  3,  7  ;  v,  6  ;    vi,  6,  8  ;    vii,  5,  6,  8; 
viii,  6;  ix,  i. 

109 i,  6;  ii,  5;  iii,  6;  iv,  7  ;  v,  8  ;  vii,  6;  ix,  4 

110  iii,  3,  8  ;  vi,  4,  6  ;  vii,  3  ;  ix,  5,  6. 

111  i,  i,  8  ;   ii,  i,  2,  4  ;  iii,  3,  4  ;  v,  2  ;  vi,  i  ;  vii,  i,  3.    "  It  is  remarkable,'* 
says  Friedlander,  Darst.  der  Litt.  Roms  iii,  p.  393,  "and  shows  most  clearly 
the  novellistic  character  of  these  inventions,  that  the  collection  of  Seneca 
had  been  frequently  and  with  evident  predilection  used  in  a  collection   of 
novels  and  anecdotes  which  was  very  popular  in  the  Middle  Ages  as  an 
entertaining  book  "   (the  Gesta  Romanorum)  ;  in  De  Sen.  Controv.  in  Gest. 
Rom.adhib.     Friedlander  gives  parallel  passages  from  both  works. 

112  Cf.   Seneca,  Contr.  i,  I,  3,  4,  7  ;  vi,  2,  7  ;  vii,  7  ;  x,  3,  4  ;    Friedlander, 
Darstell.  der  Litt.  Roms  iii,  pp.  392  sq.  ;  Quintilian,  Decl.  ccxxiv,  ccxxiii. 

113  Cf.  Hainmer,  Beilr.zu  den  19 gross,  quintil.  Decl.,  p.  7. 

114  Cf.  Juvenal,  Sat.  iv,  17. 

115  Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  viii,  3,71  in  protest:  "  Naturam  intueamur, 
hanc   sequamur.     Omnis   eloquentia   circa   opera   vitae    est,  ad  se  refert 
quisque  quae  audit,  et  id  facillime  accipiunt  animi,  quod  agnoscunt." 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA.  2J 

and  surprising  turns  of  thought  and  expression116 — the  "  inopina- 
tum  "  at  any  cost — so  that  the  treatise  became  a  mosaic  of  in- 
volved dicteria™  Having  no  attainable  object,  nothing  to  stir 
the  heart  and  rouse  the  emotions,  the  rhetor  could  only  by  force 
of  imagination  enter  into  the  spirit  of  his  theme,  finding  all  the 
points  of  opportunity  it  afforded  for  display  ing  the  elegance  of  his 
style  and  his  skill  in  speaking  on  any  subject,  for  and  against, 
making  "the  small  great  and  the  great  small."118  The  character- 
istics of  the  oratory  of  the  declamators  are  thus  compared  with 
the  oratory  of  the  courts  by  Cassius  Severus :  "  Ego  tamen 
et  propriam  causam  videor  posse  reddere  ;  adsuevi  non  auditorem 
spectare,  sed  iudicem ;  adsuevi  non  mihi  respondere,  sed  adver- 
sario ;  non  minus  devito  supervacua  dicere  quam  contraria.  In 
scholastica  quid  non  supervacuum  est  cum  ipsa  supervacua  sit  ? 
Indicabo  tibi  affectum  meum  :  cum  in  foro  dico,  aliquid  ago  ;  cum 
declamo,  id  quod  bellissime  Censorinus  aiebat  de  his,  qui  honores 
in  municipiis  ambitiose  peterent,  videor  mihi  in  somniis  laborare. 
Deinde  res  ipsa  diversa  est :  totum  aliud  est  pugnare,  aliud  venti- 
lare.  Hoc  ita  semper  habitum  est,  scholam  quasi  ludum  esse, 
forum  arenam."119  These  hothouse  orators  when  exposed  to  the 

116  Besides    the  speaking  by  contemporaries  on  stock  subjects,  we  find 
that  the  same  themes  were  declaimed  upon  repeatedly,  cf.  Seneca,  Contr. 
ii,  3  with  Quintilian,  Decl.  cccxlix  ;  Contr.  ii,  5  with  Decl.  ccli ;  Contr.  iii,  9 
with  Decl.  ccclxxx ;   Contr.  iv,  4  with  Decl.  ccclxx  ;  Contr.  vi,  5  with  Decl. 
ccc;  Contr.  vi,  6  with  Decl.  cccliv;   Contr.  ix,  6  with  Decl.  ccclxxxi ;  Contr. 
x,  2  similar  to  Decl.  cclviii.     How  completely  this  artificiality  of  both  mat- 
ter and  form  became  identified  with  antique  rhetoric,  and  how  persistently 
it  held  its  own  may  be  noted  from  the  fact  that  the  Dictiones  of  Ennodius 
at  the  end  of  the  fifth  century  A.  D.  are  still  busy  with  the  old  themes  of 
step-mothers,  tyrannicides,  etc.,  although  there  is  a  marked  decadence  in 
the  manner  of  their  treatment.     Cf.  Ennodius,  Diet,  xv  and  xviii. 

117  Cf.  Seneca,  Praef.  Contr.  i,  21  :    Nihil  est  iniquius  his,  qui  nusquam 
putant  esse  subtilitatem,  nisi  ubi  nihil  est  praeter  subtilitatem. 

118  Cf.    Plato,  Phaedr.  267  A.     Again  we    find  in  Ennodius's  Epistle  on 
Education  the  old  familiar  claim  that  rhetoric  is  the  crown  of  the  sciences, 
able  to  make  black  white  and  white  black  :  "  Post  apicem  divinitatis  ego 
ilia  sum,  quae  vel  commuto  si  sunt  factavel  facio.  ...  Si  noster  tantum, — 
non  stringunt  crimina  quemquam  Nos  vitae  maculas  tergimus  artis  ope  Si 
nives  constet  merito  quis  teste  senatu.  Cogimus  hunc  omnes  dicere  nocte 
satum."     A   sweeping   claim    indeed   for   the   "  pomposa   recitatio."     Cf. 
Ennodius,  Ambrosio  et  Beato,  Opusc.  vi,  pp.  407,  408,  ed.  Hartel. 
_119Cf.  Seneca,  Praef.  Contr.  iii,  12  sq.     See  also  Praef.  Contr.  ix,  2. 


28  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

fresh  air  of  real  life,  were  entirely  out  of  their  element  and  became 
confused  :  "Agedum  istos  declamatores  produc  in  senatum,  in 
forum ;  cum  loco  mutabuntur ;  velut  adsueta  clauso  et  delicatae 
umbrae  corpora  sub  divo  stare  non  possunt,  non  imbrem  ferre,  non 
solem  sciunt,  vix  se  inveniunt,  adsuerunt  enim  suo  arbitrio  diserti 
esse.  Non  est  quod  oratorem  in  hac  puerili  exercitatione  spectes. 
Quid  si  velis  gubernatorem  in  piscina  aestimare?  "]  The  rhetor 
Porcius  Latro  being  called  to  defend  a  relation,  became  so  con- 
fused under  the  open  sky  of  the  forum  that  at  his  request  the 
court  was  transferred  to  a  basilica.121  The  original  object  of  these 
exercises,  viz.  to  prepare  for  actual  life,  was  entirely  lost  sight  of.122 
The  whole  affair  was  a  piece  of  theatrical  ostentation  to  amuse  the 
audience  and  satisfy  the  vanity  of  the  teachers.123  Hence  the 
selection  of  subjects  fit  for  grandiloquence,124  for  the  inflated  vanity 
of  the  rhetoricians  was  one  of  the  roots  of  the  evil.  They  did  not 
care  for  the  truth  or  even  good  sense,  but  to  win  the  applause  ot 
the  public.  Complaints  of  the  vociferous  clamors  of  the  schools 
are  numerous.125  Still  in  fairness  it  should  be  added  that  not  all  the 
blame  was  laid  upon  the  rhetoricians  by  those  of  their  contempo- 
raries who  deplored  most  bitterly  the  corrupting  influence  of  this 

120  Ibid.,  Praef.  Contr.  iii,  13  sq. 

131  Ibid.,  Praef.  Contr.  ix,  3  ;  cf.  also  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  x,  5,  18. 

122  Cf.  Seneca's  idea  of  an  exercise  as  he  describes  it.  Praef.  Contr,  ix,  4  : 
Non  est  autem  utilis   exercitatio,  nisi  quae  operi  simillima  est,  in  quod 
exercet .  .  . 

123  Cf.  Quintilian,  Instil.  Orat.  ii,  10,  8  sq  :  "Nam  si  foro  non  praeparat ; 
aut  scaenicae  ostentationi  aut  furiosae  vociferationi  simillimum  est .  .  . "  ; 
cf.  also  vii,  2,  54  ;  x,  2,  12  ;  7,  21. 

124  Cf.  Morawski,  De  rhet.  lot.,  p.  9. 

125  Cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  ix,  6,  12:  "  Et  aiebat  Cestius  ;  quod  si  ad  deriden- 
dum  me  dixit,  homo  venustus  fuit,  et  ego  nunc  scio  me  ineptam  sententiam 
dicere ;    multa  autem  dico  non  quia  mihi  placent,  sed  quia  audientibus 
placitura  sunt."     As  to  the  applause  cf.  Contr.  ii,  i,  36;  vii,  4,  10;  ii,  3, 
19:  "Cum  scholasticorum  summo  fragore,"  the  absence  of  which  in  the 
forum  was  one  of  the  causes  of  the  discomfiture  of  the  rhetoricians  when 
there;  cf.  Praef.   Contr.  ix,  2;  "Cum  ventum  est  ad  forum  et  desiit  illos 
ad  omnem  gestum  plausus  excipere,  aut  deficiunt  aut  labant  "  ;  Quintilian, 
Inst.  Orat.  ii,  2,  10  :  "Ilia  vero  vitiosissima  quae  iam  humanitas  vocatur, 
invicem  qualiacunque  laudandi,  cum  est  indecora  et  theatralis  et  severe 
institutis  scholis  aliena  .  .  .  ";  iv,  I,  77  ;  3,   i  ;  ix,  4,  62  ;  cf.  also  Seneca 
the  philosopher,   Epist.   54,   12.     From  the  schools  this  theatrical  misde- 
meanor found  its  way  into  the  courts,  cf.  Pliny,  Epist.  ii,  14  ;  Morawski,  De 
rhet.  lat.,  p.  8,  foot  note. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  2Q 

kind  of  education.  It  was  demanded  by  the  superficial  tendency 
of  the  time,  and  the  rhetoricians  as  children  of  their  time  simply 
met  this  demand.  False  oratory  was  an  effect  more  than  a  cause: 
" .  .  .  talis  hominibus  fuit  oratio  qualis  vita."126  Petronius,  who 
attacked  the  rhetors  in  the  most  unsparing  manner,  says  :m 
"  Nihil  nimirum  in  his  exercitationibus  doctores  peccant,  qui 
necesse  habent  cum  insanientibus  furere.  .  .  .  Quid  ergo  est? 
parentes  obiurgatione  digni  sunt,  qui  volunt  Hberos  suos  severa 
lege  proficere.  .  .  ."  Tacitus128  says :  "  Quis  enim  ignorat  et 
eloquentiam  et  ceteras  artes  descivisse  ab  ilia  vetere  gloria  non 
inopia  hominum,  sed  desidia  iuventutis  et  negligentia  parentum 
et  inscientia  praecipientium  et  oblivione  moris  antiqui." 129 

The  Contr oversiae. — The  form  and  division  of  the  Controversiae 
are  given  in  the  title  of  Seneca's  works  :  "  Oratorum  et  rhetorum 
sententiae,  divisiones,  colores." 

1.  The  Sentential i  like  the  inventio,  contain  the  material  neces- 
sary for  judging  the  case;  they  give  the  opinions  of  the  different 
rhetors  with  regard  to  the  legal  status  of  the  case  under  consider- 
ation, i.  e.  whether  the  legal  formula  premised  is  applicable  to  the 
case,  and  if  so,  how  far?     This  is  subdivided  into  pars  prior  and 
pars  altera  (or  with  the  second  part  introduced  by  contra),  giving 
the  pro  and  con  or  the  accusatio  and  defensio. 

2.  The  divisio,  like  the  dispositio,  analyzes  and  arranges  the 
material  into  various  quaestiones  or  points  of  view  from  which  the 
case  is  argued.     Seneca130  points  out  that  the  divisio  of  the  rhetor- 
icians of  his  time  became  more  subtle  than  that  of  former  times. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  the  divisio  was  often  split  up  into  endless  sub- 
divisions, without  gain  to  either  clearness  or  force.     As  a  rule 
moreover  the  divisio  consisted  of  a  mere  skeleton  of  the  quaes- 
tiones and  their  subdivisions.131 

3.  The  colores  are  the  extenuating  reasons  for  a  punishable 

126  Seneca  philos.,  Epist.  114,  i  sq.;  cf.  also  Cucheval,  Hist,  de  Veloq.  rotn. 
i,  p.  235  ;  ii,  p.  368. 

»'C.3sq. 

™  Dialogiis  t.  28. 

129C£.  also  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  ii,  4,  15  sq.  (on  the  vanity  of  the 
parents)  ;  Persius,  Sat.  iii,  46  sq. 

130  Contr.  i,  i,  13. 

131  Cf.  Seneca,  Praef.   Contr.  vii,  2,  where   Albucius   is  reproached   for 
treating  the  divisio  more  fully.     As  an  example  may  be  given  the  divisio  i, 
3,  8.     A  vestal  for  the  sin  of  incest  was  thrown  from  the  Tarpeian  Rock, 


3O  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

deed,  which  however  were  not  founded  upon  facts  but  merely 
invented  by  the  rhetoricians.132  In  fact  the  colores  were  the 
revelling  ground  for  the  wits  of  the  rhetoricians  where  they 
indulged  to  the  full  in  subtleties,  casuistries,  and  absurdities  of 
invention.  Their  methods  of  defence  may  be  shown  by  the 
following  example.  In  defence  of  one,  who  maimed  exposed 
children  and  then  forced  them  to  beg  for  his  benefit,  Gallic 
adduces  :133  "  Egentem  hominem  et  qui  ne  se  quidem  alere  necdum 
alios  posset,  sustulisse  eos,  qui  iam  relicti  sine  spe  vix  spiritum 
traherent,  quibus  non  iniuria  fieret,  si  aliquid  detraheretur,  sed 
beneficium  daretur,  si  vita  servaretur.  Faciant  invidiam,  dicant 
alicui  oculos  deesse,  alicui  manus  dicant  illos  per  hunc  tarn  misere 
vivere,  dum  fateantur  per  hunc  vivere."  He  even  attempted  to 
set  up  this  brute  as  a  public  benefactor:  "Adeo  ....  haec  res  non 
nocuit  reipublicae,  ut  possit  videri  etiam  profuisse :  pauciores 
erunt  qui  exponant  filios."  The  condition  of  a  slave  should 
be  looked  upon  in  a  favorable  light  because:  "  Et  nos  nuper 
servos  fuisse.  Rettulit  Servium  regem."134  If  an  historical  fact 
was  involved  and  the  case  as  it  really  occurred  did  not  suit  the 
pleader,  he  had  no  scruple  about  altering  it.135 

but  was  not  killed.  The  issue  is  :  Whether  she  ought  to  be  thrown  a  second 
time.  Latro  makes  the  following  divisio  :  "  Utrum  lex  de  incesta  tutam 
esse  velit  quae  deiciatur  nee  pereat ;  an  damnata,  etiamsi  innocens  post 
damnationem  adparuit,  deici  non  debeat;  an  haec  innocens  sit;  an  haec 
deorum  adiutorio  servata  sit."  Cestius  then  subdivided  the  last  question: 
"  An  dii  immortales  humanarum  rerum  curam  agant ;  si  singulorum  agunt 
an  huius  egerint."  Fuscus  Arellius  offers  the  following  divisio:  ''Utrum 
incestae  poena  sit  deici  an  perire  ;  utrum  providentia  deorum  an  casu  ser- 
vata sit;  si  voluntate  deorum  servata  est,  an  in  hoc,  ut  crudelius  periret." 
Comment  is  needless. 

138  The  rhetoricians  themselves  made  a  distinction  between  defensio  and 
color,  cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  vii,  6,  17  :  "A  parte  patris  magis  defensione  opus 
esse  dicebat  Latro  quam  colore."  The  color  also  served  to  give  a  weak 
point,  which  was  to  be  defended,  a  plausible  aspect.  It  also  served  to 
mention  things  under  another  name  for  the  sake  of  decency,  cf.  Quintilian, 
Inst.  Orat.iv,  2,88  :  Id  interim  ad  solam  verecundiam  pertinet,  unde  etiam 
mihi  videtur  dici  color.  Tacitus  (Dialogus  c.  20)  speaks  of  the  "color  sen- 
tentiarum"  as  parallel  to  the  "  nitor  et  cultus  descriptionum,"  where  it  is 
probably  equivalent  to  our  color  or  vividness  of  speech.  Cf.  also  Ernesti, 
Rhet.  lex.\  Mayor's  edition  of  Juvenal  on  Sat.  vii,  155. 

133  Seneca,  Contr.  x,  4,  15. 

134 Ibid,  vii,  6,  1 8. 

135  Cf.  ibid,  vii,  2,8:  "  Declamatoribus  placuit  parricidi  reum  fuisse  .  .  .," 
cf.  Hainmer,  Beitr.  zu  den  19  gross,  quintil.  Decl.,  p.  6. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER    SENECA.  3! 

The  Suasoriae. — While  the  Controversiae  were  taken  from  the 
genus  iudiciale,  the  Suasoriae  belonged  to  the  genus  delibera- 
tivum  and  related  to  historical  or  mythical  persons,  answering  the 
question  what  some  such  person  was  to  do  in  a  certain  condition 
or  situation.  Hence  in  contrast  to  the  Controversiae,  into  the 
Suasoriae  names  were  introduced.  In  the  curriculum  of  the  rhe- 
torical schools  the  Suasoriae,  being  the  more  simple  and  easy, 
were  the  exercises  used  in  the  beginning ;  the  Controversiae  being 
more  varied  and  complex,  formed  the  last  state  in  the  training  of 
the  future  orator.136  A  Suasoria  may  be  simple,  merely  the  ques- 
tion whether  a  certain  thing  is  or  is  not  to  be  done  ;137  or  duplex, 
where  there  is  a  choice  between  two  alternatives  ;138  or  triple,  where 
there  are  three  alternatives.139  The  Suasoriae  are  generally  char- 
acterized by  the  absence  of  an  artistic  plan  and  arrangement  of 
the  parts ;  the  speaker  approaches  the  subject  without  an  intro- 
ductory proem  and  discusses  it  in  an  elevated  sometimes  excited 
and  even  harsh  tone.140  In  the  Suasoriae  stress  was  laid  not  so 
much  on  the  argumentation  as  on  the  description  of  the  effects 
which  might  result  from  taking  or  omitting  the  step  under  deliber- 
ation.141 The  division  of  the  Suasoriae  is  likewise  simple.  They 
consist  of  two  parts;  the  first  maybe  termed  tractatio\  it  gives 
the  formal  discourse  on  the  question.  The  second  part,  super- 
scribed divisio,  is  an  informal  and  personal  review  or  report  by 
Seneca  of  the  sayings  and  comments  of  the  rhetoricians,  inter- 
mingled with  reminiscences,  anecdotes,  and  an  occasional  excur- 
sus. 

As  has  been  already  stated,  the  defects  of  the  declamations 

136  Cf.  Westermann,  Geschichte  der  Beredsamkeit  ii,  p.  267  §81  ;  Tacitus, 
Dial.  c.  35  :  "  Ex  his  suasoriae  quidem,  tamquam  plane  leviores  et  minus 
prudentiae  exigentes,  pueris  delegantur,  Controversiae  robustioribus  adsig- 
nantur." 

137  Cf .  Seneca,  Suas.  i  and  vi. 

138  Ibid,  ii ;  iii  ;  iv  ;  v  ;  vii. 

139  Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  iii,  8,  33:  "  Pompeius  deliberabat  Parthos 
an  Africam  an  Aegyptum  peteret."     For  the  Suasoria  simple  and  duplex 
cf.  /.  c.  19  sq. 

140  Cf.  Quintilian,  /.  c.  8,  58  sq.,  69.    He  censures  this  as  an  error  of  the 
declamators. 

141  Hence  Ovid's  fondness  for  Suasoriae  and  aversion  to  Controversiae, 
cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  ii,  2,  12  :   "  Declamabat  autem  Naso  raro  controversias  et 
non    nisi   ethicas  ;     libentius   dicebat  suasorias  ;     molesta  illi  erat  omnis 
argumentatio  " ;  cf.  also  Praef.  Contr.  ii,  3;  iii,  losq. 


32  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

of  the  imperial  period  were  in  general  the  same  as  those  of 
Asianism, — lack  of  moderation,  false  pathos,  a  childish  striving 
for  the  "inopinatum"  in  thought  and  form,  frigid  affrs'iap.ot, 
perverse  ingenuity,  and  an  ostentatious  display  of  the  speaker's 
art  instead  of  its  concealment.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be 
admitted  that  some  of  the  rhetoricians  handled  this  apparatus 
with  great  skill  and  even  with  elegance..  The  following  are  a  few 
examples  taken  at  random :  "  Nullum  iam  tibi  vulnus  nisi  per 
cicatricem  imprimi  potest  "  ;142  "  Charybdis  ipsius  maris  nau- 
fragium";143  "Duplici  beneficio  uxori  suae  obligatus  est:  quod 
non  est  occisus  et  quod  occidit";144  "  Ciceronis  proscriptio  fuit 
occidi,  mea  occidere";145  "  Modum  tu  magnitudini  facere  debes, 
quoniam  Fortuna  nor.  facit.  .  .  Alexander  orbi  magnus  est  Alex- 
andro  orbis  angustus  est "  ;146  "  Ergo  tibi,  soror,  ut  honestos  habeas 
liberos,  adulterandum  est?";147  "Amisi  uxorem,  liberos,  patri- 
monium,  fortuna  mihi  nihil  praeter  laqueum  reliquit,  iste  nee 
laqueum";148  "  Quidquid  avium  volitat,  quidquid  piscium  natat 
quidquid  ferarum  discurrit,  nostris  sepelitur  ventribus,  quaere 
nunc  cur  subito  moriamur :  mortibus  vivimus."149  Instances  of 
lack  of  modus  and  indicium  in  descriptions  of  cruelty  and  other 
abhorrent  things  are  found  in  Contr.  x,  4,  2  and  ix,  2,  4.  How 
far  the  rhetoricians  could  go  in  silliness  and  absurdity  is  shown 
in  Praef.  Contr.  vii,  8,  where  Albucius  asks ;  "  Quare  calix  si 
cecidit  frangitur,  spongia  si  cecidit  non  frangitur?"  To  which 
Cestius  aptly  replied  :  "  Ite  ad  ilium  eras,  declamabit  vobis,  quare 
turdi  volent,  cucurbitae  non  volent."  Instances  of  this  sort  might 
be  multiplied  indefinitely.  Favorite  digressions  of  the  rhetor  were 
inveighings  against  the  corruption  of  the  times,160  and  moralizings 
on  the  instability  of  fortune.151  Still  there  are  found  among  these 
excrescences  of  an  overstrained  imagination  real  gems  of 
wisdom:  "  Optimus  virtutis  finis  est,  antequam  deficias  des- 
inere";152  "Magni  pectoris  est  inter  secunda  moderatio"  ;15$ 
"Magisdeos  miseri  quam  beati  colunt";154  "  Nulla  satis  pudica 
est  de  qua  quaeritur "  ;155  "Ludit  de  suis  fortuna  muneribus 
et  quae  dedit  aufert,  quae  abstulit  reddit,  nee  unquam  tutius 

142  Contr.  i,  8,  3.  ™Suas.  i,  13.  144  Contr.  ii,  5,  5. 

145  Contr.  vii,  2,  n.  l46Suas.  i,  3.  u7  Contr.  vii,  6,  2. 

148  Contr.  v,  1,4.  149  Praef.  Contr.  x,  9. 

150 Cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  ii,  7,  i. 

151  Cf.  Contr.  ii,  i,  i  ;  v,  i  ;  cf.  also  Morawski,  De  rhet.  lat.,  pp.  8,  12  sq. 

152  Contr.  i,  8,  3.       153  Suas.  i,  3.       J54  Contr.  viii,  I,  2.       155  Contr.  i,  2,  10. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  33 

est  illam  experiri  quam  cum  locum  iniuriae  non  habet";156 
the  three  hundred  Laconians  at  Thermopylae  say :  "  Electi 
sumus,  non  relicti." 157  The  form  of  the  declamations  is 
characterized  by  the  same  artificiality  as  their  subject-matter. 
In  general  it  bears  the  stamp  of  the  Silver  Latinity, — a  certain 
studied  smoothness,  correctness,  and  elegance,  the  confusion  of 
prose  and  poetic  diction,  of  which  the  author  of  the  Dialogus  de 
Oratoribus  complains,158  as  if  all  attention  should  be  given  to  the 
form  instead  of  the  substance,159  a  copious  use  of  the  apparatus  of 
tropes  and  figures  and  especially  of  the  antithesis.160  Here  again 
is  a  lack  of  modus  and  indicium.  So,  for  instance,  in  Seneca,  Suas. 
vi,  5  on  Mark  Antony  :  "  Quae  Charybdis  est  tarn  vorax  ?  Charyb- 
dim  dixi,  quae,  si  fuit,  animal  unum  fuit ;  vix  me  dius  fidius 
Oceanus  tot  res  tamque  diversas  uno  tempore  absorbere  potuis- 
set ";  or  Contr.  vii,  3,  8,  the  metaphors  used  by  Muredius:  "Abdi- 
cationes  suas  veneno  diluit  .  .  .  mortem  meam  effudit." 

c.  Influence  of  rhetoric  on  other  branches  of  literature. — Con- 
sidering the  important  position  accorded  to  the  rhetorical  schools 
and  rhetoric  itself  in  the  mental  life  of  the  imperial  epoch,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  the  school  declamations  affected  the  tone  and 
style  of  other  departments  of  literature.  It  should  be  remembered 
that  in  the  rhetorical  works  of  Seneca,  the  declamations  bearing 
the  name  of  Quintilian,  and  the  fifty-one  Epitomae  decem  rhetorum 
minorum  of  Calpurnius  Flaccus,  we  have  but  a  small  remnant  of 
those  productions  of  the  schools  which  were  spread  abroad  in 
book  form.  There  must  have  grown  up  a  sort  of  "  corpus 
declamationum  "  as  a  thesaurus  for  the  benefit  of  aspirants  to  the 
art  of  speaking.161  Moreover  although  the  subjects  discussed  in 

156  Contr.  v.  i.  i.  157  Suas.  ii,  4. 

158  cf    Tacitus,  Dialogus  c.  20  :   "  Exigitur   enim   iam   ab  oratore  etiam 
poeticus  decor,  non  Accii  aut  Pacuvii  veterno  inquinatus,  sed  ex  Horatii  et 
Vergilii  et  Lucani  sacrario  prolatus  ";  Seneca,  Suas.  iii,  4  :  "  Fuscus  Arel- 
lius  Vergilii  versus   voluit  imitari  ";  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  ii,  4,  3  :  "  .  .  .  . 
arcessitis  descriptionibus,  in  quas  plerique  imitatione  poeticae  licentiae 
ducuntur." 

159  Cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  vii,  4,  70;  ix,  2,  27. 

160  Cf.  Persius,  Sat.  i,  85  sq.  "...  crimina  rasis  Librat  in  antithetis,  doc- 
tus  posuisse  figuras  Laudatur  «  bellum  hoc  '  !  " 

161  This  may  be  inferred  from  Seneca,  Praef.  Contr.  i,  19  ;  cf.  also  Hain- 
mer,  Beitr.  zu  den  19  gr.  quint.  Decl.>  p.  9. 

3 


34     THE  THEMES  TREATED  BY  THE  ELDER  SENECA. 

the  schools  were  out  of  touch  with  actual  life,  the  schools  them- 
selves influenced  living  men.  Single  sayings  of  the  rhetoricians 
were  widely  promulgated  and  became  a  kind  of  eicea  Trre^oevra.162 
The  mannerisms  of  the  rhetoricians,  with  their  confusion  of  prose 
and  poetic  diction,  with  their  ' '  egressiones "  for  the  sake  of 
variety,  in  splendid  descriptions  of  men,  cities,  mountains,  the  sea, 
etc.,163  crept  especially  into  the  historical  works  of  the  time.164  It 
would  seem  that  while  in  this  epoch  the  various  kinds  of  literature 
became  mixed, — a  characteristic  of  a  nervous  and  unsettled 
period, — the  line  of  demarcation  between  rhetoric  and  history  was 
particularly  effaced.165  Among  the  poets  the  one  most  influenced 
by  rhetoric  was  Ovid,166  as  Euripides  among  the  Greeks.  Persius 
at  the  age  of  sixteen  became  the  pupil  of  the  rhetor  Cornutus  and 
remained  his  devoted  adherent  for  the  rest  of  his  life.167  Lucan 
as  a  fellow-pupil  of  Persius,  also  surrendered  himself  to  the  fasci- 
nating influence  of  Cornutus,168  and  the  Pharsalia  affords  many 
examples  of  epigrammatic  power  acquired  in  the  rhetorical 

162  Cf.  Seneca,  Suas.  ii,  10:   "  Recolo  nihil  fuisse  me  iuvene  tarn  notum, 
quam  has  cxplicationes  Fusci,  quas  nemo   nostrum  non  alius  alia  incli- 
natione  vocis  velut   sua  quisque  modulatione  cantabat  ":    Quintilian,  Inst. 
Orat.  viii,  3,  76  :    "  Quae    me    iuvene    ubique  cantari  solebant  ";    Tacitus, 
Dialogus  c.  20  :   "  luvenes  .  .  .  non  solum  audire  sed  etiam  referre  domum 
aliquod  inlustre  et  dignum  memoria  volunt ;  traduntque  invicem  ac  saepe 
in  colonias  ac  provincias  suas  scribunt,  sive  sensus  aliquis  arguta  et  brevi 
sententia  affulsit,  sive  locus  exquisite  et  poetico  cultu  enituit";   cf  also 
Morawski,  DC  rhet.  lat.,  pp.  4sq. 

163  Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  iv,  3,  12. 

164  Op.  cit.  x,  2,  21  :  "  Id  quoque  vitandum,  in  quo  magna  pars  errat,  ne 
in  oratione  poetas  nobis  et  historicos,  in  illis  operibus  oratores  at  declama- 
tores  imitandos  putemus.   Sua  cuique  proposita  lex,  suus  cuique  decor  est"; 
cf.  also  Lucian  ITwf    6el  Icropiav  ovyypdQEiv,  15  sq.   27  ;   Spengel,  Ueber  das 
Studiunty  etc.,  p.  28;  Blass,  Die  griech.  Bereds.,  p.  146  sq. 

165  Cf.  Seneca,  Suas.  v,  8  :  "...  sententiam  .  .  .  dignam  quae  vel  in  ora- 
tione   vel   in    historia  ponatur";  Pliny,  Epist.  ii,  5:    "Nam  descriptiones 
locorum,  quae  in  hoc  libro  frequentiores  erunt,  non  historice  tantum,  sed 
paene  poetice  prosequi  fas  est  ";  Morawski  in  Zeitschrift  filr  die  osterreich- 
ischen  Gymnasien  xliv  (1881),  pp.  97  sq. 

166  Cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  ii,  2,  8  :  "...  Latronis  admirator  fuit  (sc.  Ovid)  .  .  . 
adeo  autem  studiose  Latronem  amavit  ut  multas  illius  sententias  in  versus 
suos  transtulerit  .  .  .  ";  cf.  also  Gruppe,  Quaest.  Ann.,  pp.  36  sq.;  Cucheval, 
Hist,  de  Veloq.  rom.  i,  pp.  288  sq. 

167  Cf.  Persius,  Sat.  v,  22-65  5  Dio  Cassius  Ixii,  29. 

168  Cf.  Monceaux,  Les  Africains,  p.  186;  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  x,  i,  90. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA.  35 

school.169  The  rhetor  Septimus  Severus  had  as  his  intimate 
friends  the  poets  Statius  and  Martial ;  the  former  dedicated  to 
Severus,  Silvae  iv,  5  (cf.  1.  29-52),  and  the  latter  dedicated  to  him 
four  of  his  epigrams.170  The  declamations  had  a  no  less  marked 
influence  upon  the  tragedies  of  the  younger  Seneca.171  As  the 
declamations  contain  among  much  chaff  many  precious  grains,  so 
was  their  influence  on  Latin  literature  not  an  unmixed  evil.  On 
this  point  the  judgment  of  Bernhardy  is  as  follows  :  "The  weak 
as  well  as  the  brilliant  points  of  the  authors  of  that  time  have  their 
final  cause  in  the  declamation  ;  if  on  the  one  hand  we  are  dis- 
turbed by  their  cut  up,  inflated  and  hasty  manner,  they  on  the 
other  hand  owe  to  rhetoric,  which  was  developed  to  the  extreme, 
an  elasticity  and  keenness  of  thought  which  compensates  for  the 
shapelessness  and  tastelessness  which  are  met  with  here  and 
there."  172 

3.    The  character  and  attainments  of  the  rhetoricians. 

It  has  been  stated  already  that  after  the  emperors  took  the 
rhetorical  schools  under  their  protection,  the  social  status  of  the 
rhetors  became  in  a  measure  a  respected  and  honored  one.  Rich 
men  engaged  rhetors  to  give  exhibitions  of  the  declamatory  art 
for  the  entertainment  of  guests  in  their  own  houses.173  At  other 
times  they  delivered  their  discourses  in  schools,  at  their  homes,  or 
in  public  places  such  as  basilicas  and  theaters.  Rhetoricians  were 
often  the  companions  of  prominent  men :  so  Albucius  Silus  of  Plan- 
cus,174  Timagenes  of  Pollio.175  What  a  colossal  opinion  of  their 
own  importance  and  that  of  their  art  the  rhetoricians  had,  may  be 
seen  from  Aper's  exposition  in  Tacitus,  Dialogus  c.  5-y.176  It  may 

169  Cf.  Lucan,  Pharsalia  iv,  185,  823. 

170  Cf.  Monceaux,  /.  c.,  p.  189  sq. 

171  Cf.  Leo,  De  Sen.  trag.  obs.  crit.,  pp.  147   sq.     Seneca's  tragedies  arc 
"  Declamationes  ad  tragoediae  amussim  deductas  et  in  actus  deductas." 

172  Cf.  Bernhardy,  Grundriss  der  rdmischen  Litteratur,  p.  282. 

173  Cf.  Suetonius,  De  vir.  ill.  c.  7  :  "  M.  Antonius  Grypho  docuit  primum 
in  Divi  Julii  domo  pueri  adhuc,  deinde  in  sua  privata";  Gruppe,  Quaest. 
Ann.,  p.  27. 

174  Cf.  Suetonius,  De  rJiet.  clar.  c.  30. 

175  Cf.  Seneca  philos.,  De  Ira  iii,  23. 

178 Cf.  for  instance  c.  7  end  :  "Quid?  fama  et  laus  cuius  artis  cum  ora- 
torum  gloria  comparanda  est  ?  Qui  tam  inlustres  et  in  urbe  .  .  .  non  solum 
apud  negotiosos  et  rebus  intentos  sed  etiam  apud  vacuos  at  adulescentes 
quibus  modo  recta  indoles  est  et  bona  spes  sui." 


36  THE   THEMES   TREATED    BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA. 

be  safely  asserted  that  the  immoderate  vanity,  conceit,  and  rivalry 
of  the  rhetoricians,  which  led  them  to  make  a  display  of  their 
skill  and  acumen  an  end  in  itself,  or  rather  the  end,  and  to  adopt 
every  expedient  to  draw  attenton  to  it,  was  a  leading  cause  of  the 
perversion  of  oratory  at  that  time.  As  might  be  expected  of 
men  who  lived,  moved  and  had  their  being  in  an  unreal  world 
and  whose  life-work  was  confined  within  the  four  walls  of  a  school- 
room, the  rhetoricians  must  have  been  as  a  rule  unpractical  and 
pedantic.  As  Koerber177  remarks,  this  may  have  been  implied  in 
the  name  "  scholasticus,"  which  was  given  to  them.  Thus 
Seneca178  says  with  reference  to  Bassus  who  endeavored  in  his 
declamations  to  imitate  the  force  and  earnestness  of  an  orator  of 
the  forum  :  "  Nihil  est  indecentius  quam  ubi  scholasticus  forum, 
quod  non  novit,  imitatur.  Amabam  itaque  Capitonem  ....  bona 
fide  scholasticus  erat."179  And  Seneca180  relates  that  Albucius 
affected  in  his  declamations,  vulgarities  and  low  expressions  in 
order  not  to  appear  as  a  scholasticus.  The  rhetoricians  took 
their  task  and  the  preparation  for  it  very  easily.181  When  origi- 
nality was  lacking  they  were  content  to  appropriate  the  mental 
property  of  others,  changing  or  omitting  a  word.182  Still  there 
were  individual  exceptions  who  were  earnestly  devoted  to  their 
art,  and  endeavored  to  cultivate  and  perfect  it.  So  for  instance 
Latro.183  Moreover  there  was  not  an  absolute  lack  of  able  men 
with  sound  judgment  and  clear  insight,  who  made  no  secret  of 
their  opinion  of  the  unwholesome  character  of  the  school  decla- 
mations and  the  shortcomings  of  the  rhetoricians.  The  crushing 
judgment  of  Cassius  Severus184  has  been  quoted  already.  Mon- 

177  Ueber  den  Rhetor  Seneca,  pp.  44  sq. 

™  Praef.  Contr.  x,  12. 

179 Cf.  Tacitus,  Dialogus  c.  35:  "At  nunc  adulescentuli  nostri  deducuntur 
in  scaenam  scholasticorum,  qui  rhetores  vocantur  ";  Koerber,  Ueber  den 
Rhet.  Seneca,  p.  45,  foot  note  212  :  "  In  the  same  meaning  Petronius  in  his 
first  Satire  employs  the  word  'impracticus,' ;'.  e.  'scholasticus,  qui  in  umbra 
sub  tecto  vitam  agit,'  according  to  an  old  glossary  on  Petronius." 

180  Praef.  Contr.  vii,  3  sq. 

181  Cf.  Seneca,  Praef.  Contr.  i,  10  :   "  Quis  est,  qui    memoriae    studeat  ? 
Quis,  qui  non  dico  magnis  virtutibus,  sed  suis  placeat  ?  Sententias  a  diser- 
tissimis  viris  iactas  facile  in  tanta  hominum  desidia  pro  suis  dicunt." 

182  Cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  x,  5,  20:    "Multi  sunt,    qui   detracto   verbo   aut 
mutato  aut  adiecto  putent  se  alienas  sententias  lucri  fecisse." 

183  Cf.  Seneca,  Praef.  Contr.  i,  23. 

184  Cf.  Seneca,  Praef.  Contr.  iii,  12  sq. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA.  37 

tanus  Votienus  speaks  in  terms  no  less  sharp  of  the  vanity  and 
want  of  conscientiousness  of  the  rhetoricians.185  To  a  certain 
degree  they  seem  to  have  exercised  a  mutual  criticism.186  From 
the  fact  that  the  rhetoricians  were  allowed  to  harangue  freely 
against  tyranny,  to  exalt  tyrannicide  in  the  most  glowing  terms, 
and  to  kill  off  their  imaginary  tyrants  to  their  heart's  content, 
unmolested  by  the  actual  tyrants  who  were  sitting  on  the  throne,18* 
it  may  be  inferred  that  they  were  regarded  as  a  harmless  sort  of 
people  and  that  they  exercised  no  influence  whatever  on  the 
movements  of  political  life.  Reference  has  been  made  to  the 
possibility  that  the  emperors  favored  the  rhetorical  schools  as  a 
safety-valve  for  the  lingering  remnant  of  the  old  Roman  love  of 
liberty.  Real  life  as  it  seems  went  on  its  course  ignoring  them  as 
it  was  ignored  by  them.  So  likewise  the  dissensions  of  the 
various  rhetorical  sects188  must  have  been  a  harmless  matter, 
merely  in  the  nature  of  personal  attachments  to  individual 
masters,  and  not  as  in  the  warring  philosophical  schools,  a  differ- 
ence of  principles,189  for  the  obvious  reason  that  professionally  the 
rhetoricians  had  no  principles.  It  cannot,  however,  be  too 
strongly  emphasized  that  they  could  never  have  attained  such  a 
height  of  foolishness  and  such  an  absurd  feeling  of  self-importance 
had  they  not  been  strongly  supported  by  the  public  opinion  of 
the  times,190  and  the  reason  for  this  strong  support  has  in  it  an 

185  Ibid.,  Praef.  Contr.  ix,  I  sq. 

186  Ibid.,  Contr.  i,  2,  22;  vii,  5,  7;    ix,  6,  13;    Koerber,    Ueber  den  Rhet. 
Sen.)  pp.  52  sq. 

187  Cf.  Bonnell,  De  mut.  sub.  prim.  Caes.  Eloq.,  p.  29. 

188  Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  ii,  n,  2. 

189  Cf.  Blass,  Diegriech.  Bcreds.,  p.  157. 

190Fronto,  perhaps  the  most  courted  and  flattered  of  all  the  rhetoricians, 
expresses  on  almost  every  page  of  his  writings  his  fatuous  consciousness 
that  the  whole  universe  has  its  eyes  fixed  upon  him  (cf.  Ad  amicos,  i,  12); 
that  nothing  exists  outside  of  rhetoric  ;  that  rhetoric  is  the  queen  of  the 
world,  and  that  Fronto  is  the  king  of  rhetors.  His  sorrow  and  disappoint- 
ment when  his  imperial  pupil,  Marcus  Aurelius,  turned  from  rhetoric  to 
philosophy,  are  amusingly  characteristic  of  the  man  (cf.  Monceaux,  Les 
Africains,  pp.  215,  227  sq.).  To  explain  such  ridiculous  vanity  it  is  neces- 
sary to  remember  that  the  whole  world  then  thought  of  Fronto  what  he 
thought  of  himself.  He  was  compared  by  his  contemporaries  to  the  ancient 
Greek  orators  and  to  Cato,  and  pronounced  their  superior  (cf.  Monceaux, 
ibid.,  pp.  221  sq.).  So  well  did  he  understand  the  prevailing  taste  that  for 
a  long  time  cultivated  Rome  "  Frontonized  ";  his  age  recognized  and 


38  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA. 

element  of  pathos.  The  Roman,  filled  with  the  memory  of  the 
glory  that  had  been, — the  reality  gone  from  his  citizenship,  from 
his  oratory,  and  from  his  religion, — attributing  to  rhetoric  an 
ethical  power  strong  to  help,  turned  to  it  as  an  end  in  itself,191  his 
only  link  with  the  past,  his  only  means  of  education  for  the 
present ;  clinging  to  it  with  a  sort  of  despairing  frenzy  lest  if 
sacred  rhetoric  should  perish,  with  it  should  vanish  from  the 
world  his  only  hope  for  the  future.  Only  from  this  point  of  view 
can  be  comprehended  rightly  that  intense  devotion  to  an  artificial 
thing, — a  devotion  which  inevitably  defeated  its  own  purpose. 

admired  itself  in  his  works  (cf.  Monceaux,  ibid.,  p.  239).  Unfortunately  for 
Fronto's  reputation  in  modern  times,  the  discovery  of  a  portion  of  his 
writings  in  a  palimpsest  at  the  beginning  of  this  century,  has  shown  how 
exaggerated  beyond  his  deserts  was  the  estimate  of  his  own  age. 

191  Cf.  Theo,  Progymnasmata  (Spengel,  Rhet.  Grace,  ii,  60);  "ml  urjv  -fj 
6ia  xP£ia£  yvfjLvaoia  ov  ju,6vov,  riva  6vvafj.iv  Xoyuv  ipyd^eTat,  aA/ld  /cat  xpqaTov  rt 
f)-So<;  kyyvp)a(,o[ji£vuv  fj(j.uv  roZf  ruv  oo&uv  aTro^tfey^acw  ";  cf.  also  Jebb,  The 
Attic  Orators  ii,  p.  54. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER    SENECA.  39 

PART  II. 
I. — SENECA  THE  ELDER. 

i.     His  life. 

For  a  long  time  it  was  the  fate  of  the  elder  Seneca  not  only  to 
be  overshadowed  by  his  greater  son  the  philosopher,  but  to  be 
entirely  merged  in  him,  so  that  his  writings  were  attributed  to  his 
son  and  always  combined  with  those  of  the  latter.  It  was  Raphael 
of  Volaterra,  who  lived  until  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, who  first  distinguished  Seneca  the  Elder  Irom  Seneca  the 
philosopher.192  The  confusion  between  father  and  son  was  fully 
cleared  up  later  by  Justus  Lipsius.193  To  this  amalgamation  of 
the  two  is  probably  due  the  fact  that  the  praenomen  of  the  father 
is  differently  given.  The  MSS.  have  either  L  (Lucius)  which  is 
the  praenomen  of  the  philosopher,  or  omit  it  entirely,  while  the 
name  of  Marcus  is  first  mentioned  by  Raphael  Volaterra.  This 
may  have  originated,  as  Koerber  surmises,194  from  the  fact  that  it 
was  customary  among  the  Romans  to  give  children  the  praenomen 
of  the  grandfather,  and  as  the  children  of  Mela195  and  of  Seneca 
the  philosopher196  bore  the  name  of  Marcus,  it  was  assumed  that 
this  was  the  praenomen  of  the  elder  Seneca  also.197  The  praenomen 

192  In  his  Commentariorum  urbanorum  octo  et  triginta  libri  Anthropol.  1.  19 
(Raphael    Maffeius  Volaterranus);    cf.  Antonius  Hispalensis,  Bibliotheca 
Hispana  vetus  i,  i . 

193  Electorum  liber  i  (appeared  in  1580). 

194  Ueber  den  Rhetor  Seneca,  p.  4. 
193  The  poet  M.  Lucanus. 

196  Cf.  Seneca  philos.,  Consol.  ad  Helv.  18,  4. 

197  H.  J.  Miiller,  in  the  preface  to  his  edition  of  Seneca  Rhetor  (Vindo- 
bonae  MDCCCLXXXVII),  p.  viii,  thinks  it  probable  that  father  and  son  were 
confounded  because  they  had  the  same  praenomen.    Wolfflin  (Rh.  Mus.  1., 
(1895),  p   320)  assumes  that  the  praenomen  is  Lucius  on  the  ground  that 
Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  x,  i,  125,  mentions  the  philosopher  simply  as  Seneca, 
while  ibid.  101,  114  he  speaks  of  T.  Livius  and  C.  Caesar  to  distinguish  the 
historian  from  the  poet  Livius,  and  the  dictator  from  another  Caesar,  as 
also  Varro  Aticinus  is  cited  by  Priscian  10,  3,  to  distinguish  him  from  M. 
Varro  of  Reate.     Wolfflin  argues  that  Quintilian  would  have  marked  the 
distinction  of  praenomen  between  the  Senecas,  father  and  son,  had  such  a 
distinction   existed.     This  argument  does    not    seem   very    convincing   as 
Quintilian  is  speaking  only  of  philosophers,  so  that  there  was  no  possible 
ambiguity  as  to  which  Seneca  he  meant. 


4O  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

therefore  must  be  regarded  as  uncertain.  Seneca  was  born  at 
Cordova  in  Spain.198  His  family  was  wealthy199  and  belonged  to 
the  equestrian  order.800  The  date  of  his  birth  can  be  only  approx- 
imately established  by  the  combination  of  other  data.  Seneca 
himself  says201  that  but  for  the  civil  war  which  kept  him  in  his 
native  province,  he  would  have  had  the  opportunity  of  hearing 
Cicero  declaiming  with  the  two  great  men  who  bore  the  toga 
praetexta.  By  these  are  to  be  understood  Hirtius  and  Pansa  who 
were  consuls  in  43  B.  C.,202  and  Seneca  must  refer  to  this  very 
year.  The  question  of  Seneca's  age  at  this  time  depends  on 
another,  viz.  at  what  age  pupils  usually  entered  the  rhetorical 
schools.  Koerber203  assumes  in  consideration  of  the  confusion  of 
the  courses  of  the  grammatical  and  rhetorical  schools  mentioned 
above,204  that  boys  entered  the  rhetorical  schools  at  the  early  age 
of  ten,  and  would  accordingly  fix  the  birth  of  Seneca  in  the  year 
53  B.  C.  But  even  granting  that  some  boys  may  have  come  when 
ten  years  old  under  the  training  of  the  rhetoricians,  it  is  not  likely 
that  one  would  be  sent  at  that  tender  age  from  a  distant  province 
to  the  metropolis  for  the  sake  of  study.  It  seems  safer  therefore 
not  to  fix  upon  any  year  as  the  certain  date  of  birth  but  to  leave  it 
undecided  between  60  and  53  B.  C.205  It  is  generally  assumed 
that  Seneca  visited  Rome  twice.206  As  regards  the  date  of  his 
first  coming,  it  would  seem  from  the  passage  Praef.  Contr.  i,  1 1 

198 Cf.  Seneca  philos.,  Epigr.,  ix  (Ed.  Haase)  :  ''Nunc  longinqua  tuum 
deplora,  Corduba,  vatem  .  .  .  Ille  tuus  quondam  magnus  tua  gloria  civisln- 
figar  scopulo  ";  Seneca,  Praef.  Contr.  i,  1 1  :  "  Bellorum  civilium  furor  .  .  . 
intra  coloniam  meam  me  continuit  ";  Martial,  i,  61,  7  :  "Duosque  Senecas 
unicumque  Lucanum  facunda  loquitur  Corduba." 

199  Cf.  Seneca  philos.,  Cons,  ad  Helv.  14,  2. 

200  Cf.  Tacitus,  Annales  xiv,  53:    "  Egone,  equestri  et  provincial!  loco 
ortus  proceribus  civitatis  adnumeror." 

201  Praef.  Contr.  i,  n. 

202  Cf.  Suetonius,  De  clar.  rhet.  c.  i  :  "Cicero  adpraeturam  usque  Graece 
declamavit ;  Latine  vero  senior  quoque,   et   quidem   consulibus   Hirtio   et 
Pansa,  quos  discipulos  et  grandes  praetextatos  vocabat  ";  cf.  also  Cicero, 
Ad  Fam.  vii,  33,  i ;  ix,  16,  7. 

*mUeber  den  Rhet.  Seneca,  p.  3.  204  Page  17. 

205  Cf.  Clinton,  Fasti  Hellenica  iii,  p.  261,  2d  edition,  who  adopts  61  B.  C. 
as  the  date  of  Seneca's  birth. 

206  Cf.  Seneca,  Praef.  Contr.  iv,  3  :    "  Audivi  autem   ilium  (sc.  Asinium 
Pollionem)  et  viridem  et  postea  iam  senem."     This  passage,   quoted  by 
Koerber  (Ueber  den  Rhet.  Seneca,  p.  4)   in  support  of  this  assumption,  does 
not  seem  at  all  decisive. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  41 

quoted  in  Note  198,  that  he  left  Cordova  soon  after  the  death  of 
Cicero.  This  date  is  also  supported  by  two  other  passages  of  the 
same  preface  §§  13  and  24,  in  which  Seneca  relates  that  he  lived  in 
close  friendship  with  Porcius  Latro  from  early  boyhood  ("aprima 
pueritia  "),  and  that  he  heard  him  recite  his  first  Controversia  while 
still  a  youth  ("admodum  iuvenem  ")  in  the  school  of  Marullus 
where  he  was  himself  a  student.207  On  the  other  hand  the  civil 
wars  which  prevented  him  from  going  to  Rome  during  Cicero's 
lifetime,  did  not  cease  before  29  B.  C.208  How  long  Seneca  re- 
mained in  Rome  on  his  first  visit  is  not  known.  We  may  assume 
that  he  staid  there  long  enough  to  complete  his  rhetorical  edu- 
cation.209 Returning  to  Cordova  he  married  Helvia  who  belonged 
to  an  old  conservative  family  and  who  seems  personally  to  have 
been  a  woman  of  no  common  parts.210  By  this  marriage  there 
were  three  sons :  Novatus,  who  was  adopted  by  the  rhetor  L. 
Junius  Gallio,  Lucius  Seneca  the  philosopher,  and  Mela  the  father 
of  the  poet  Lucan.211  The  latest  possible  date  of  Seneca's  second 
coming  to  Rome  is  4  A.  D.  For  Asinius  Pollio,  of  whom  he 
says  :212  "  Audivi  ilium  et  viridem  et  postea  iam  senem  "  (on  which 
words,  especially  postea,  Koerber  and  Gruppe  base  their  theory 
of  a  double  visit)  died  5  A.  D.  And  at  least  five  years  later 
Seneca  must  have  been  still  at  Rome.213  The  date  of  Seneca's  death 
can  be  ascertained  only  approximately.  On  the  one  hand  it  is 
certain  that  he  was  still  alive  in  34  A.  D.  For  in  Suas.  ii,  22  he 
speaks  of  the  accusation  raised  against  Scaurus  Mamercus  by  Fus- 
cus,  and  the  extinction  of  the  Scaurus  family  in  the  person  of  this 
Mamercus.  This  accusation  was  made  in  32  A.  D.,2U  and  two 

207  Cf.  Koerber,  Ueber  den  Rhet.  Sen.,  p.  5  ;   Gruppe,  Quaest.  Ann.,  p.  25. 

208  Cf.  Baurnm,  'De  rhet.  Grace,  a  Seneca  in  Suas.  el  Contr*  adhib.,  p.  12. 
Baumm  assumes  this  date  for  Seneca's  first  coming  to  Rome  and  offers  the 
explanation    that    the   youthful    recitation    of    Latro    and   the  teaching  of 
Marullus  occurred  in  Cordova. 

209  Cf.  Koerber,  Ueber  den  Rhet.  Sen.,  p.  6;  Gruppe,  Quaest.  Ann.,  p.  25. 
Gruppe  assumes  that  he  did  not  leave  Rome  before  16  B.  C. 

210  Cf.  Seneca  philos.,  Consol.  ad  Helv.,  passim,  especially  xiv  sq. 

211  They  are  introduced  in  this  order  in  the  prefaces  to  the  Controversiae, 
except  in  that  to  book  ix,  where  Lucius  is  wanting. 

212  Praef.  Contr.  iv,  3. 

213  Cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  i,  3,  10,  where  he  mentions  "  Varus  Quintilius  tune 
Germanici  gener  ut  praetextatus  ";  Gruppe,  Qiiaest.  Ann.,  pp.  25  sq. 

214  Cf.  Tacitus,  Annales  vi,  c.  9  :  "  Appius  Silanus  Scauro  Mamerco  simul 
ac  Sabino  Calvisio  maiestatis  postulantur  "  (under  Tiberius). 


42  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

years  after,  another  accusation  induced  Mamercus  to  commit  sui- 
cide, by  which,  as  Seneca  says,  his  family  became  extinct.215  On 
the  other  hand  Seneca  did  not  survive  the  banishment  of  his  son 
Lucius,  which  took  place  in  41  A.  D.,216  and  accordingly  the  date 
of  his  death  is  to  be  set  between  34  and  41  A.  D.  These  limits  may 
be  narrowed  if  Suetonius's  account  of  the  death  of  Tiberius  is  an 
extract  from  Seneca's,  lost  historical  work,  the  existence  of  which 
is  attested  by  Seneca  the  philosopher.217  The  passage  of  Sueto- 
nius218 reads  :  "  Seneca  eum  (sc.  Tiberium)  scribit,  intellecta  defec- 
tione  exempturum  annulum  quasi  alicui  traditurum  parumper 
tenuisse,  dein  rursus  aptasse  digito  et  compressa  sinistra  manu 
iacuisse  diu  immobilem,  subitoque  vocatis  ministris  ac  nemine 
respondente  consurrexisse  nee  procul  a  lectulo  deficientibus  viri- 
bus  concidisse."  In  this  case  Seneca  would  at  least  have  survived 
Tiberius  who  died  37  A.  D.219 

2.  His  character. 

The  character  of  Seneca  is  reflected  especially  in  the  prefaces 
to  the  single  books  of  the  Controversiae,  in  which  he  writes  in  an 
unaffected  epistolary  style  as  a  father  to  his  children,  in  a  tone 
which  bears  the  stamp  of  sincerity  and  conviction.  We  recognize 
a  man  of  the  old  sterling,  almost  severe  Roman,  character  after 
the  pattern  of  M.  Porcius  Cato,  of  whom  he  was  a  great  admirer.220 

215  Cf.  Tacitus,  ibid,  c,  29:  "Mamercus  dein  Scaurus  rursum  postulatur 
.  .  .  ab  Servilio  et  Cornelio  accusatoribus  adulterium  Liviae,  magorum 
sacra  obiectabantur.  Scaurus,  ut  dignum  veteribus  Aemiliis,  damnationem 
anteit,  hortante  Sextia  uxore,  quae  incitamentum  mortis  etparticeps  fuit." 

216 This  follows  from  the  passages  in  Cons,  ad  Helv.  ii,  4  sq.:  "  Carissi- 
murn  virum,  ex  quo  mater  trium  liberorum  eras,  extulisti.  Lugenti  tibi 
luctus  nuntiatus  est  omnibus  quidem  absentibus  liberis,  quasi  de  industria 
in  id  tempus  coniectis  malis  tuis,  ut  nihil  esset  ubi  se  dolor  tuus  reclinaret. 
Transeo  tot  pericula,  tot  metus,  quos  sine  intervallo  in  te  incursantes, 
pertulisti;  modo  in  eundem  sinum,  ex  quo  tres  nepotes  emiseras,  ossa 
trium  nepotum  recepisti.  Intra  vicesimum  diem,  quam  filium  meum  in 
manibus  et  in  osculis  tuis  mortuum  funeraveras,  raptum  me  audisti ;  hoc 
adhuc  defuerat  tibi  lugere  vivos." 

217  Cf.  Fragm.  98.  218  Tiber,  c.  73. 

219  Cf.  on  this  question  Niebuhr,  M.  Tull.  Cic.  orat.  pro    M.  Font,  et  pro 
Rab.  fragm.;  T.  Liv.  Lib.  xci  fragm.  plen.  et.  emend.;  L.   Sen.  fragm.  ex 
membr.  Bibl.  Vat.,  p.  104  ;  Koerber,  Ueber  den  Rhet.  Sen.,  pp.  8-10  ;  Teuffel, 
Hist,  of  Rom.  Lit.  §  269.  5. 

220  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  i,  9. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  43 

He  passes  a  censure221  upon  the  corruption  and  laxity  of  the  times, 
to  which  there  are  numerous  allusions  in  the  Controversiae,222  and 
probably  goes  too  far  and  exaggerates,  as  is  usually  the  case  with 
the  laudator  temporis  acti.  Seneca  indeed  exhibits  some  traces  of 
the  rigor  antiquus™  He  disapproved  of  the  higher  education 
of  women,  "propter  istas  quae  litteris  non  ad  sapientiam  utuntur, 
sed  ad  luxuriam  instruuntur."  In  his  earlier  years  he  took  part 
in  political  life  and  was  not  indifferent  to  political  ambitions  and 
honors ;  but  later  he  regarded  political  life  as  beset  with  dangers 
compared  with  which  the  life  of  a  scholar  afforded  a  safe  harbor 
but  little  exposed  to  the  storms  of  fate.224  As  far  as  we  know  even 
as  a  scholar  his  activity  was  confined  to  writing,  for  although  it  is 
certain  that  he  passed  much  of  his  time  in  the  rhetorical  schools, 
where  alone  he  could  have  acquired  his  vast  knowledge  of  con- 
temporary rhetoric,  there  is  nothing  whatever  to  show  that  he 
took  any  active  part  in  them  or  that  he  has  the  slightest  claim  to 
the  title  of  rhetor  which  has  been  given  him.  Seneca  shows  himself 
again  as  an  old  Roman  of  the  Catonian  type  in  his  unconcealed 
antipathy  to  the  Greek  rhetoricians  and  Greek  culture  in  general. 
In  fact  he  overlooks  no  opportunity  of  giving  the  Greeks  a  re- 
buke; compare  for  instance  Praef.  Contr.  i,  6:  "insolens  Graecia"; 
Contr.  x,  4,  23:  "Graecas  sententias  in  hoc  refero,  ut  possitis 
aestimare,  primum  quam  facilis  e  Graeca  eloquentia  in  Latinum 
transitus  sit  et  quam  omne,  quod  bene  dici  potest,  commune 
omnibus  gentibus  sit,  deinde  ut  ingenia  ingeniis  conferatis  et 
cogitetis  Latinum  linguam  facultatis  non  minus  habere,  liceiitiae 
minus";  compare  besides:  Contr.  i,  6,  12;  i,  7,  12;  i,  8,  7;  ii,  6, 
12,  ix,  2,  29.  Still  his  sense  of  justice  occasionally  compels  him 
to  accord  praise  to  the  Greeks,  as  in  Contr.  x,  4,  18,  but  even  this 
he  usually  qualifies  with  a"nescio  an"  when  the  Greeks  have 
the  advantage  in  a  comparison  with  the  Roman  rhetoricians  as 
in  Contr.  i,  4,  10  and  I2.225  As  regards  Seneca's  attitude  toward 

221  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  i,  2,  8  sq.  23. 

22-2  Cf.  i,  7,  5  ;   ii,  4,  10  ;    x,  4,  17  sq. 

2J3Thus  Contr.  iv,  6  he  considers  it  a  weakness  ("  imbecillus  animus  ") 
in  Haterius  who  had  lost  six  sons,  to  burst  into  tears  in  the  midst  of  a  dis- 
course which  recalled  his  loss  ;  cf.  also  Sen.,  Consol.  ad  Helv.  xvii,  3  : 
"  Patris  mei  antiquus  rigor  .  .  .  Virorum  optimus,  pater  meus,maiorum  con- 
suetudini  deditus." 

224  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  ii,  3  sq. 

225  Cf.  Buschmann,  Character  der  griechischen  Rhetoren  beim  Rhetor  Seneca, 
pp.  1,2;  Koerber,  Ueber  den  Rhet.  Sen.,  pp.  63  sq. 


44  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

the  political  conditions  of  his  time,  it  may  be  said  that  he  was  on 
the  whole  reconciled  to  the  change  from  the  confusion  and  unrest 
of  the  later  period  of  the  Republic  to  the  imperial  rule,  although 
the  love  of  liberty,  especially  so  far  as  it  concerned  the  freedom 
of  the  scientific  spirit,  was  still  alive  in  his  breast.  He  is  in 
complete  sympathy  with  Augustus  whom  he  terms  a  "clementis- 
simus  vir," 226  and  praises  for  allowing  to  a  certain  extent  freedom  of 
speech.227  But  he  is  fully  aroused  to  ire  by  the  literary  auto-da-fts 
of  his  time.228  He  has,  however,  no  sympathy  for  those  foolhardy 
persons  who  would  rather  risk  their  heads  than  forego  some 
seditious  saying.229 

3.  His  writings. 

The  rhetorical  writings  of  Seneca  which  have  survived  under 
the  title  "  Oratorum  et  rhetorum  sententiae,  divisiones,  colores," 
consist  of  one  book  of  Suasoriae  and  ten  books  of  Controversiae.230 
The  first  contains  seven  themes,  of  which  the  beginning  is  incom- 
plete, and  Bonnell  is  perhaps  right  in  thinking  that  they  repre- 
sent only  a  small  remnant  of  the  original  number  of  Suasoriae, 
possibly  not  even  the  whole  of  the  first  book.231  Of  the  ten  books 
of  Controversiae,  only  five,  viz.  i,  ii,  vii,  ix  and  x,  have  the  decla- 
mations, thirty-five  in  number,  in  full,  although  even  these  exhibit 
many  lacunae.238  Of  the  thirty-nine  Controversiae  of  the  other 
books,  viz.  iii,  iv,  v,  vi  and  viii,  there  are  in  existence  only  the 

826 Praef.  Contr.  iv,  5. 

227  Cf.  Contr.  ii,  4,  5  :    "  Tanta  autem  sub  divo  Augusto  libertas  fuit,  ut 
praepotenti  tune  M.  Agrippae  non  defuerint  qui    ignobilitatem  exprobra- 
rent."    It  was  by  no  means  an  excessive  freedom  of  speech  which  Augustus 
left  to  the  proud  Romans. 

228  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  x,  6,  where  he  says  of  the  burning  of  the  writings  of 
Labienus  :    "  Bono  hercules  publico  ista  in  poenas  ingeniorum  versa  crude- 
litas  post  Ciceronetn  inventa  est ";   §  7  :   "  Facem  studiis  subdere,  et  in 
monumenta  disciplinarum  animadvertere  quanta  et  quam  non  contenta  cet- 
era materia  saevitia  est." 

229  Cf.  Contr.  ii,  4,  13  :    "...  sed  horum  non  possum  misereri,   qui  tanti 
putant  caput  potius  quarn  dictum  perdere." 

230  That  the  division  of  the  Controversiae  into  books  originated  with  Sen- 
eca himself,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  each  book  is  introduced  by  a  preface. 

231  Cf.  Bonnell,  DC  mut.  sub.  prim.   Caes.  eloq.,  p.  22:    "  Videtur  autem, 
quae  ad  nos  pervenerunt  septem  (sc.  Suasoriae)  exigua  tantum  pars  a  Sen- 
ecae  libris  mandatum  f uisse,  fortasse  ne  primus  quidem  liber    integer,   quo 
certe  numero    antiquissima  Suasoriarum  editio  Veneta  inscribitur." 

232  The  ignorance  of  the  copyist  played  special  havoc  in  transcribing  the 
dicta  of  the  Greek  rhetoricians  ;  cf.  Buschmann,  Char,  der  griech.  Khet.  beim 
Rhet.  Seneca,  p.  3. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA.  45 


Excerpts.233  In  this  loss  it  is  some  consolation  that  the  valuable 
prefaces  to  books  iii  and  iv  have  been  preserved.  In  regard  to 
the  date  of  composition  of  the  writings  we  know  that  Seneca  pro- 
duced them  in  extreme  old  age.234  For  a  more  precise  date  the 
same  points  come  under  consideration  which  were  discussed  con- 
cerning the  date  of  his  death,  i.  e.  they  must  have  been  written 
between  34  and  41  A.  D.  Schanz235  would  limit  this  interval  to  the 
first  years  of  Caligula's  reign,  because,  he  thinks,  during  the  reign 
of  Tiberius,  Seneca  would  not  have  dared  to  quote  in  Suas.  vii,  19 
from  the  book  of  Cremutius  Cordus,  which  had  been  officially 
burned,  in  a  work  which  was  intended  not  only  for  his  sons  but 
for  the  public.  Schanz  quotes  Praef.  Contr.  i,  10  :  "  Quaecunque 
a  celeberrimis  viris  facunde  dicta  teneo,  ne  ad  quemquam  priva- 
tim  pertineant,  populo  dedicabo."  But  this  is  not  at  all  conclu- 
sive. Seneca  may  have  intended  his  rhetorical  writings,  which  he 
composed  in  the  first  place  at  the  request  and  for  the  benefit  of 
his  sons,  for  the  general  public,  yet  not  have  delivered  them  to 
the  public  during  his  lifetime,  but  entrusted  this  matter  to  his  sons, 
so  as  not  to  come  into  conflict  with  the  tyrannical  Tiberius  even 
if  he  censured  him  in  his  book.236  The  Controversiae  were  com- 

233  Cf.  Bursian  in  the  Preface  to  his  edition  of  Seneca,  p.  vii  sq.,  concern- 
ing the  date  of  origin  and  the  value  of  the  Excerpts  :    c'  Controversiarum 
libros  magna  fuisse  etiam  apud  posteriores  aevi  homines  auctoritate  ex  eo 
colligere  liceat,  quod  saeculo  fere  quarto  vel  quinto  p.  Chr.  n.  extitit  qui  illas 
ad    scholarum,  ut  mihi  videtur,  usus  in  epitomen  redegerit,  praefationes 
autem  sive  epistulas  ad  filios  datas,  quas  Seneca  singulislibris  praemiserat 
integras    in    hanc    exerptorum  collectionem    transtulerit,  exceptis  praefa- 
tionibus    libri    quinti,    sexti,  octavi,  et  noni,  quas   cur  omiserit    rationem 
reddere    non  possumus.     Epitimator  autem  quisquis  fuit  in  negotio  suo 
exsequendo  nee  satis  perite  nee  satis  diligenter  est  versatus  ;  nam,  ut  omit- 
tam  quod  plurima  ex  arbitrio  suo  immutavit,  baud  raro  sententias  tarn  arte 
cum  aliis  connexas  ut  sine  damno  ab  illis  divelli  non  possent,  nexu  exsolutas 
ita  posuit  ut  legentibus  nobis  ineptae  omnique  sensu  destitutae  videantur 
.  .  .  Quin  etiam  est  ubi  sententias  a  Seneca  positas,  quia  non  intellexerat 
prorsus   corruperit  "j  cf.  Konitzer,  Quaest.  in  Sen.  pair,  crit>,  p.  12;  H.  J. 
Muller  in  the  Preface  to  his  edition  of  Seneca,  p.  xxii. 

234  Cf.  Seneca,  Praef.  Contr.  i,  2  :  "  Sed  cum  multa  iam  mihi  ex  meis  des- 
ideranda  senectus  fecerit,  oculorum  aciem  retuderit,  aurium  sensum  hebe- 
taverit,  nervorum  firmitatem  fatigaverit  ..." 

235  Geschichte  der  romischen  Litteratur  ii,  p.  200;  cf.  also  Bursian  in  the 
Preface  to  his  edition  of  Seneca,  p.  vii. 

836  That  he  entrusted  some  works  to  his  son  Seneca  the  philosopher,  for 
publication,  follows  from  the  passage  of  Seneca  philosopher,  fragm.  98  (ed. 
Haase  iii,  p.  436);  cf.  Koerber,  Ueber  den  Rhet.  Sen.,  pp.  9  sq. 


4-6      THE  THEMES  TREATED  BY  THE  ELDER  SENECA. 

posed  before  the  Suasoriae.237  The  primary  reason  of  Seneca's 
writing  his  rhetorical  works  was  the  request  of  his  sons  who 
desired  to  become  acquainted  with  the  sa)^ngs  of  the  rhetoricians 
in  order  to  form  an  independent  judgment  on  them.238  At  the 
same  time  the  work  was  intended  for  the  general  public  eventu- 
ally.239 Still  a  third  motive  was  to  rescue  some  of  the  prominent 
rhetoricians  from  oblivion  or  from  what  is  worse,  misrepresenta- 
tion.240 

Besides  the  Suasoriae  and  Controversiae,  Seneca  composed  an 
historical  work  on  the  period  from  the  beginning  of  the  civil  wars 
down  to  his  own  time,  and,  as  it  would  seem,  some  other  works 
which  have  been  lost.  This  would  follow  from  what  his  son  says 
in  fragm.  98 :  "  Si  quaecunque  composuit  pater  meus  et  edi 
voluit,  iam  in  manus  populi  emisissem,  ad  claritatem  nominis  sui 
satis  sibi  ipse  prospexerat :  nam  nisi  me  decipit  pietas,  cuius  hon- 

237  Cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  ii,  4,  8  :  "  Quae  dixerit  (sc.  Latro)  suo  loco  reddam 
cum  ad  suasorias  venero."  This  passage  confirms  the  opinion  that  the 
Suasoriae  extant  do  not  represent  all  which  were  edited  by  Seneca  as  he 
would  scarcely  have  failed  to  reproduce  this  long  Suasoria  of  his  beloved 
Latro.  In  the  MSS.  and  most  of  the  editions  the  Suasoriae  are  placed  be- 
fore the  Controversiae  in  accordance  with  the  gradation  adopted  for  instruc- 
tion in  the  rhetorical  schools,  where  the  Suasoriae  being  easier  came  first. 
Cf.  Schott  in  his  Preface,  p.  7  :  "  Etsi  non  me  fugit  Controversias  prius  edi- 
disse  M.  Annaeum  quam  Suasorias,  has  enim  Controversia  xii  promittit, 
tamen  feci  libenter  ut  has  illis  ordine  anteponerem,  cum  tradendarum  artium 
Methodo,  quae  perfaciliora  notaque,  ad  ea  quae  difficilia  magis,  obscura 
atque  ignota  sunt,  viam  sternit,  turn  priorum  editionum  exemplo  Frobinii, 
etc."  Cf.  Teuffel,  Hist,  of  Rom.  Lit.  §  269,  7  ;  H.  J.  Miiller  (Preface,  p.  viii) 
thinks  it  might  be  concluded  from  the  circumstance  that  the  end  of  the 
Controversiae  and  the  beginning  of  the  Suasoriae  are  wanting,  that  in  the 
older  MSS.  now  lost,  the  Suasoriae  were  preceded  by  the  Controversiae. 
The  lacuna  could  thus  be  easily  explained  by  the  loss  of  several  leaves  or 
an  entire  quaternion.  But  if  the  Suasoriae  preceded  the  Controversiae  this 
lacuna  may  be  easily  accounted  for  in  another  way,  viz.  the  beginning  and 
end  of  a  book  are  the  first  to  suffer  all  kinds  of  vicissitudes. 

238  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  i,  I  :  "  Jubetis  .  .  .  ab  illis  (sc.  declamatoribus)  dicta 
colligere,  ut,  quamvis  notitiae  vestrae  subducti  sint,  tamen  non  credatis 
tantum  de  illis,  sed  et  iudicetis." 

239  Cf.  Ibid.  I  10. 

240  Cf.  Ibid.  §  ii  :  "  Ipsis  quoque  multum  praestaturus  videor,  quibus  ob- 
livio  imminet,  nisi  aliquid  quo  memoria  eorum  producatur,  posteris  trad- 
itur.     Fere  enim  aut  nulli  commentarii  maximorum  declamatorum  extant 
aut,  quod  peius  est,  falsi.     Itaque  ne  aut  ignoti  sint  aut  aliter  quam  debent 
noti,  summa  cum  fide  suum  cuique  reddam." 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  47 

estas  etiam  error  est,  inter  eos  haberetur,  qui  ingenio  meruerunt 
ut  puris  scriptorum  titulis  nobiles  essent.  Quisquis  legisset  eius 
historias  ab  initio  bellorum  civilium,  unde  primum  veritas  retro 
obiit,  paene  usque  ad  mortis  suae  diem,  magni  aestimaret  scire, 
quibus  natus  esset  parentibus  ille,quires  Romanas.  .  .  ."  Whether 
the  "  quaecunque  "  refers  to  works  besides  the  history,  and  whether 
these  works  were  independent  treatises  on  rhetoric  as  Koerber241 
surmises,  is,  although  very  likely,  not  certain.  Nor  does  the  pas- 
sage seem  conclusive  which  is  quoted  by  Quintilian  from  a  Con- 
troversia  of  Seneca  to  support  the  view  that  Seneca  published 
declamations  of  his  own.  For  Koerber's  arguments242  to  prove 
that  this  passage  is  not  from  one  of  the  Controversiae,  i.  e.  which 
Seneca  merely  collected  and  which  were  afterward  lost,  are  not 
decisive.  The  tone  and  tenor  of  the  passage  in  question  are 
entirely  in  keeping  with  the  style  of  the  Controversiae  which  we 
find  in  the  collection  of  Seneca,243  and  the  theme  is  in  a  degree 
parallel  to  that  of  Contr.  vi,  7. 

4.    Value  of  his  rhetorical  writings. 

The  rhetorical  writings  are  the  richest  and  most  trustworthy 
source  of  our  information  on  the  methods  and  condition  of  the 
study  of  rhetoric,  and  since  rhetoric,  as  has  been  said  above,  com- 
prised the  whole  of  what  we  term  a  liberal  education,  we  may  add 
of  the  pursuit  of  liberal  studies  and  general  culture  in  the  ages  of 
Augustus  and  Tiberius.  It  is  true,  they  do  not  convey  an  adequate 
picture  of  the  schools  of  that  time ;  the  individual  declama- 
tion is  not  presented  as  it  was  delivered  and  discussed  in  some 
definite  place  and  at  a  definite  time,  but  solely  with  regard  to  its 
contents.  For  since  most  of  the  themes  were  stereotyped  and  in 
vogue  in  various  schools,  Seneca  reproduced  what  he  has  heard 
on  each  of  them  in  several  places  and  on  several  occasions.244 

241  Ueber  den  Rhet.  Sen.,  p.  22.  242 Loc.  cit. 

248  Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  ix,  2,  42:  "  Noyi  vero  et  praecipue  decla- 
matores  audacius  nee  mehercule  sine  motu  quodam  imaginantur ;  ut  Seneca 
ista  in  controversia,  cuius  summa  est,  quod  pater  filium  et  novercam  indu- 
cente  altero  filio  in  adulterio  deprehensos  occidit :  Due,  sequor ;  accipe 
hanc  senilem  manum  et  quocunque  vis  imprime.  Et  post  paulo,  Aspice,  in- 
quit,  quod  diu  non  credidisti.  Ego  vero  non  video,  nox  oboritur  et  crassa- 
caligo." 

244 Cf.  Suas.  ii,  n  :  "Non  quidem  in  hac  suasoria,  sed  in  hac  materia 
dissertissima  ilia  fertur  sententia  Dorionis  ";  ibid.  12  :  "  Occurrit  mihi  sen- 
sus  in  eiusmodi  materia  a  Severe  Cornelio  dictus";  cf.  also  Contr.  i,  2,  22. 


48  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

Still  we  have  the  personal  observations  and  experiences  of  a  man 
devoted  to  the  subject  in  question,  who,  notwithstanding  he  was  in 
the  noise  and  clamor  of  the  schools,  preserved  a  clear  insight  and 
a  sober  judgment.  This  he  shows  amply  in  the  prefaces  to  the 
various  books  of  the  Controversiae  and  his  personal  remarks 
interspersed  throughout  the  declamations.  The  prefaces  are  the 
most  readable  portions  of  the  work  and  not  only  are  most  impor- 
tant for  a  knowledge  of  the  life  and  character  of  Seneca  himself, 
but  also  contain  the  most  direct  information  concerning  the  state 
of  literary  taste  and  education  as  well  as  the  life,  methods,  and 
manners  of  the  prominent  rhetors.  The  style  of  the  prefaces 
shows  few  traces  of  the  influence  of  Silver  Latinity  and  is  not 
inelegant.245  Seneca  imitated  Cicero,  whom  he  admired  so 
much,246  not  without  success.  The  style  of  the  prefaces  is  marked 
by  clearness,  precision,  purity  of  expression,  and  a  regular  and 
perspicuous  periodic  structure.  In  the  declamations  the  influence 
of  the  Silver  Latin  is  predominant.  The  question  arises,  to  whom 
are  the  diction  and  style  of  these  (the  Controversiae  and 
Suasoriae)  to  be  attributed  ?  Have  we  in  them  a  faithful  reproduc- 
tion in  form  and  contents  of  the  sayings  of  each  rhetorician  to 
whom  they  are  ascribed  ;  or  did  Seneca  freely  give  the  thoughts 
of  the  rhetors  his  own  form  ?  This  latter  view  is  adopted  by 
Teuffel.247  But  the  difference  between  the  language  of  the  prefaces 
and  that  of  the  declamations,  and  also  in  the  manner  of  expression 
of  the  different  rhetoricians,  is  so  marked  that  it  would  seem  that 
Seneca  endeavored  also  to  reproduce  the  peculiarities  of  the 
style  of  the  individual  rhetors.  This  is  the  view  adopted  by  M. 
Sander248  and  H.  T.  Karsten.249  They  regard  the  wording  of  the 
declamations  as  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  Seneca  to  reproduce  the 
varying  styles  of  the  different  speakers,  and  appeal  to  the  fact 
that  Seneca  had  no  other  sources  for  his  work  than  his  memory 
which,  good  as  it  was,  could  not  be  expected  to  be  absolutely 
faithful  as  regards  the  details  of  the  mode  of  expression,  They 

245  Cf.  Schott,  De  aucl.  el  decl.  rat.,  p.  5.     "  De  cuius  scriptoris  stylo  ita 
iudicare  non  dubitem,  nihil  esse  in  lingua  Latina,  cum  a  Cicerone  Fabioque 
discesseris,  scripto  purius  et  elegantius." 

246  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  i,  7,  n  ;  Suas.  vi,  14  sq. 

247  Hist,  of  Rom.  Lit.  §  269.  6. 

248  Quaest.  in  Sen.  rhet.  synt.,  p.  4  sq. ;  Der  Sprachgebratich  des  Rhet.  Ann. 
Sen.  i,  p.  i  sq. 

942£)<?  eloc.  rhet.  qual.  inven.  in  Ann.  Sen.  suas.  et  contr.,  pp.  9  sq. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  49 

remind  us,  however,  that  Seneca  refers  with  pride  to  the  prodigious 
power  of  his  memory,  which  bordered  on  the  miraculous.280 
Besides,  as  Karsten  observes,  it  is  not  at  all  impossible  that 
Seneca  assisted  his  memory  by  consulting  the  various  collections 
of  declamations  in  current  use,  to  the  existence  of  which  he  often 
refers.261  Does  it  not  seem  altogether  probable  that  Seneca  had 
also  notes  taken  by  himself  while  listening  to  the  declamations  ? 
Many  of  the  epigrammatic  phrases  scattered  throughout  his  work 
are  so  good  that  it  seems  as  if  they  must  be  in  the  exact  words  of 
the  speakers  who  uttered  them.  Sander  and  Karsten  remind  us 
that  the  characteristics  of  the  style  of  the  different  rhetoricians,  as 
given  by  Seneca  in  the  prefaces,  are  really  verified  by  the  sayings 
quoted  from  them  afterwards.  It  is  shown  that  the  style  of  the 
individual  rhetoricians  as  represented  in  Seneca's  work,  differs 
not  only  in  a  general  way  but  also  in  some  definite  details.252 
Still  it  seems  necessary  to  assume  that  the  stylistic  peculiarities  of 
the  individual  rhetors  are  somewhat  effaced,  as  even  a  most 
phenomenal  memory,  assisted  by  notes,  would  scarcely  be  able  to 
reproduce  in  all  their  details,  discourses  delivered  many  years 
previously.263  Moreover  we  must  not  regard  the  reports  of 
Seneca  as  a  reproduction  in  full  of  the  speeches  delivered  in  the 

250  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  i,  2  sq. :    "Hanc  (sc.  memoriam)  aliquando  adeo  in 
me  floruisse,  ut  non  tantum  ad  usum  sufficeret  sed  in  miraculum  usque  pro- 
cederet,  non  nego ;    nam  et  duo  milia  nominum  recitata  quo  erant  ordine 
dicta  reddebam  et  ab  his,  qui  ad  audiendum  praeceptorem  mecum   conve- 
nerant,  singulos  versus  a  singulis  datos,  cum   plures    quam   ducenti  effice- 
rentur  ab  ultimo  incipiens  usque  ad  primum  recitabam.     Nee  ad  complec- 
tenda  tantum  quae  vellem  velox  mihi  erat  memoria,  sed  etiam   ad   conti- 
nenda  quae  acceperat  solebat  bonae  fidei  esse."     That  Seneca   does  not 
exaggerate  is  evident  from  the  tone  of  simplicity  (cf.  ibid.  19)  in  which  he 
speaks  of  the  acquirement  of  a  good  memory  as  something  easy,  and  men- 
tions several  cases  as   Hortensius  and  the  legate   of   Pyrrhus.     For  other 
instances  of   men  endowed  with  an   extraordinary  memory  cf.  Schott,  De 
auct.  et  decl.  rat.,  p.  i  ;  so  that  there  is  no  reason  for  disbelieving  Seneca's 
description  of  his  own. 

251  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  i,  n  ;  iii,  3.  15  ;  iv,  2 ;   Contr.  ix,  6,  18  ;  Praef.  Contr. 
x,  3.  8  and  12. 

252  Thus  for  instance  "idcirco,"  which  occurs  in  the  sayings  of  Latro,  is 
never  used  by  Seneca  himself,  while  the  other  rhetoricians  use  in  its  stead 
"  ob  hoc,  ob  id,  etc.  "  ;  cf.  Sander,  Quaest.  in  Sen.  rhet.  synt.^  pp.  5  sq. 

253  Cf.  Benhardy,  Grundr.  der  rom.  Litt.,  p.  792  :    "  Die  Form  ziemlich 
dasselbe   subjective   Geprage   des  Erzahlers  tragt";    Koerber,  Ueber  den 
Rhet.  Sen.,  pp.  19  sq. 

4 


5O  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

schools  ;  much  is  written  in  a  compressed  and  abrupt  manner, 
bearing  out  the  theory  of  note-taking  suggested  above  ;  some  of 
it  seems  like  portions  of  a  table  of  contents.  All  this  is  not  to  be 
overlooked  in  judging  the  style  of  the  individual  rhetors  and  may 
account  for  many  apparently  cramped  and  artificial  sentences.254 
In  fact,  Seneca  neither  intends  nor  pretends  to  be  an  objective 
narrator  of  what  had  been  going  on  in  the  schools.  In  the  third 
part  of  the  Controversiae  (the  colores}  and  the  second  part  of  the 
Suasoriae  (the  divisio),  he  especially  indulges  in  digressions  and 
ex parte  remarks  of  all  kinds.  Now  he  addresses  his  sons,  calling 
their  attention  to  certain  circumstances  or  recalling  something 
said  before.255  Now  he  volunteers  his  judgment  on  some  saying 
of  a  rhetor  or  discusses  some  passage  from  a  poet,  which  is  but 
loosely  connected  with  the  scholastic  subject  in  hand.  Most  of 
all  he  delights  in  reminiscences  and  anecdotes  concerning  the  rhetor- 
icians and  others.256  Occasionally  even  a  jest  is  ventured  upon.257 
If  all  this  interferes  with  the  objectivity  of  Seneca's  narration,  and 
confirms  the  opinion  expressed  above  that  we  find  in  the  Contro- 
versiae and  Suasoriae  but  an  inadequate  picture  of  the  life  and 
action  of  the  rhetorical  schools,  still  we  may  assert  that  Seneca 
was  a  subjective  writer  with  a  very  powerful  memory  which 
enabled  him  to  reproduce  the  characteristics  of  the  different 
rhetors,  and  this  intermingles  something  of  life,  fresh  and  warm, 
with  the  cold  subtleties  and  casuistries  of  the  main  body  of  the 
work. 

5.  His  attitude  toward  rhetoric  and  the  rhetoricians. 

Seneca  approached  the  work  of  recording  his  reminiscences  of 
life  in  the  schools  with  much  cheerfulness  and  pleasure258  and  is 
most  enthusiastic  about  the  art  and  study  of  rhetoric,  which  in 
his  opinion  is  the  noblest  of  all  pursuits259  and  the  means  of 

254 Seneca  sometimes  states  explicitly  that  he  has  omitted  certain  pas- 
sages of  the  discourses,  and  gives  a  brief  hint  of  the  omitted  portion,  cf. 
Contr.  i,  8,  10  :  "  Hie  exempta  "  ;  ii,  6,  25  :  "  Hie  vitiorum  exprobatio  "  ; 
vii,  6,  13 :  "  Deinde  de  animo  servi,"  etc. 

255  Cf.  Contr.  vii,  i,  27;  Suas.  i,  16;  ii,  10. 

256  Cf.  Contr.  ii,  2,  12  ;  ii,  4,  1 1  ;  vii,  3,  9  ;  vii,  4,  6  ;  Suas.  iii,  5  sq. 

257  Cf.  Contr.  x,  5,  28. 

258  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  i,  i  :  "  Exigitis  rem  magis  iucundam  mihi  quam  facile 
.  .  .  iucundum  mihi  redire  in  antiqua  studia  melioresque  ad  annos   respi- 
cere." 

259  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  ii,  5  :  "  pulcherrima  disciplina." 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA.  51 

entrance  to  all  liberal  culture.260  But  he  is  not  a  blind  devotee  to 
any  and  every  kind  of  rhetoric.  He  complains  bitterly  of  the 
condition  of  the  art  in  his  own  time261  and  distinguishes  the  decla- 
matio  from  the  "  solidum  scripti  genus."262  In  several  passages  in 
the  prefaces  he  lays  down  rules  on  the  art  of  rhetoric  :  the  student 
should  acquaint  himself  with  several  models :  "  Quo  plura 
exempla  inspecta  sunt,  plus  in  eloquentiam  proficitur.  Non  est 
unus,  quamvis  praecipuus  sit,  imitandus,  quia  nunquam  par  fit 
imitator  auctori  .  .  .  ,"263  The  endeavor  to  imitate  deprives  one  of 
firmness  of  judgment :  "  Hoc  illi  (sc.  Albucio)  accedebat  incon- 
stantia  iudicii:  quern  proxime  dicentem  commode  audiebat  imitari 
volebat."264  Subtlety  of  thought  must  be  concealed  in  order  to  be 
effective.265  He  condemns  severely  the  use  of  sordid  and  obscene 
expressions.266  The  style  should  have  vigor  without  straining  for 
elaborate  and  exaggerated  effects.267  The  fulness  of  expression 
should  not  be  overloaded.268  The  discussion  should  be  clear  and 
simple,  but  solid.269  The  argumentation  should  be  neither  clumsy 
nor  involved.270  As  a  sum  total  of  the  qualities  of  a  good  speaker, 
according  to  Seneca's  view,  may  be  added  his  characterization 
of  Cassius  Severus:  "  Omnia  ergo  habebat,  quae  ilium,  ut  breve 
declamaret,  instruerent :  phrasin  non  vulgarem  nee  sordidam,  sed 
electam,  genus  dicendi  non  remissum  aut  languidum,  sed  ardens 
et  concitatum,  non  lentas  nee  vacuas  explicationes,  sed  plus 
sensuum  quam  verborum  habentes,  diligentiam,  maximum  etiam 
mediocris  ingenii  subsidium."271  Seneca's  comments  and  criti- 
cisms, embodying  his  views  and  principles  in  detail,  are  inter- 
spersed among  the  sayings  of  the  individual  rhetors,  over  some 
of  whom  he  grows  quite  enthusiastic,  as  for  instance  Latro,272  and 
Crassus  Severus.27*  Others  are  pointed  out  in  contradiction  to 
these  worthy  exponents  of  their  art,  as  being  conspicuous  for 
stupidity  and  absurdity.274  Still  all  are  dealt  with  fairly  and  no 

260  Cf.  Ibid.,  3  :  "  Facilis  ab  hac  (sc.  eloquentia)  inomnes  artes  discursus 
est ;  instruit  etiam  quos  non  sibi  exercet." 

261  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  i,  6  sq. ;  Praef.  Contr.  iii,  I  ;  Praef.  Contr.  x,  12. 

262  Cf.  Contr.  i,  8,  16  ;  Suas.  vi,  16. 

263  Praef.  Contr.  i,  6.     264  Praej '.  Contr.  vii,  4.     265  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  i,  21. 

266  Cf.  Contr.  i,  2,  22  sq.  ;  Praef.  Contr.  iii,  7  ;  Praef.  Contr.  vii,  3  sq. 

267  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  ii,  i  ;  Praef.  Contr.  iv,  7  ;  Contr.  ix,  2,  28. 

268 Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  ii,  i.  269Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  iii,  7. 

270  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  vii,  i  271  Praef.  Contr.  iii,  7. 

272  Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  i,  13  sq.  273Cf.  Praef.  Contr.  iii,  i  sq. 

274  Cf.  on  this  point  Buschmann's  interesting  essay:    Die  "enfants  ter- 
rible s  "  unter  den  Rhetor  en  des  Seneca. 


52  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

good  point  is  left  unnoticed ;  a  felicitous  expression  receives 
praise  even  if  it  be  senseless;  a  good  thought  even  if  it  be  poorly 
expressed.  It  is  true  that  in  Seneca's  criticisms  censure  predomi- 
nates over  praise.  He  does  not  mince  matters ;  epithets  like 
"  insanus,  stultus,  puerilis,  ineptus,  furiosus,"  are  frequent ;  there 
is  no  lack  of  biting  sarcasm  :  "  Antonius  Atticus  inter  has  pueriles 
sententias  videtur  palmam  meruisse  ";275  "  Corvo  rhetori  testimo- 
nium  stuporis  reddendum  est  ";276  "  Sparsum  hoc  colore  decla- 
masse  memini,  hominem  inter  scholasticos  sanum,  inter  sanos 
scholasticum."277  On  Seneca's  attitude  toward  the  Greek  rhetori- 
cians we  have  already  spoken.  He  was  by  no  means,  however, 
a  petty,  morose  pedant  and  scold ;  he  is  thoroughly  genial  and 
has  no  idea  of  putting  the  fetters  of  rigid  rules  upon  rhetoric  : 
"  Nee  sum  ex  iudicibus  severissimis,  qui  omnia  ad  exactam 
regulam  derigam :  multa  donanda  ingeniis  puto ;  sed  donanda 
vitia  non  portenta  sunt."278  And  what  some  of  the  rhetors  accom- 
plished in  absurdity  and  perversion  of  truth  and  good  taste  was 
"  portentous "  indeed.  To  hear  or  read  these  puerilities  was  a 
different  thing  from  slowly  and  carefully  writing  them  down, — a 
task  to  try  the  patience  even  of  so  grave  and  dignified  a  man  as 
Seneca  shows  himself  to  have  been.  This  same  Seneca  who, 
yielding  to  the  request  of  his  sons,  undertook  the  task  with 
pleasure  and  enthusiasm,  expresses  toward  the  end  utter  weari- 
ness and  disgust :  "  Fateor  vobis,"  he  addresses  his  sons,  "  iam 
res  taedio  est.  Primo  adsilui  velut  optimam  vitae  meae  partem 
mihi  reducturus:  deinde  iam  me  pudet  tamquam  diu  non  seriam 
rem  agam."2 

If  an  estimate  of  Seneca's  mental  attainments  is  to  be  drawn 
from  his  extant  rhetorical  writings,  it  may  be  said  that  there  is 
nothing  in  them  to  show  a  man  of  extraordinary  capacity.  The 
finesse  and  acumen  of  Dionysius  Halicarnassus  or  Quintilian  are 
lacking  in  him.  Still  his  judgment,  if  not  always  fine,  is  sound. 
This  is  the  more  admirable  when  we  consider  that  he  passed  a 
great  portion  of  his  time  while  at  Rome  in  an  artificial  and  narrow- 
ing sphere.  His  style  by  its  clearness  and  simplicity  reminds 
us  of  the  golden  age  of  Latin  diction.  His  place  in  Latin  liter- 
ature is  that  of  the  standard  authority  on  the  spirit  and 
tendency  of  the  art  of  rhetoric  at  the  beginning  of  the  imperial 
r6gime. 

™Suas.  ii,  16.       ™  Ibid.  21.         277  Contr.  i,  7,  15.      278  Praef.  Contr.  x,  10. 
279 Praef.  Contr.  x,  i  ;  cf.  Koerber,  Ueber  den  Rhet.  Sen.,  pp.  59  sq. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA.  53 

II. — MANUSCRIPTS  AND  EDITIONS. 

A  full  description  of  the  various  MSS.  and  editions  is  given  by 
H.  J.  Miiller  in  the  Preface  to  his  edition  (1887)  of  the  elder 
Seneca.  The  leading  facts  are  briefly  summarized  below. 

i.  Manuscripts. 

The  MSS.  of  Seneca's  writings  divide  themselves  into  two 
classes, —  ist,  those  of  the  original  work  of  Seneca  as  far  as  it  is 
extant,  i.  e.  the  Controversiae  Books  i,  ii,  vii,  ix  and  x  exclusive 
of  the  Prefaces  to  books  i  and  ii,  and  the  seven  Suasoriae ;  2nd, 
those  containing  the  Excerpts  of  books  i,  ii,  iii,  iv,  vii  and  x. 

\st  MSS.  of  the  Controversiae  and  Suasoriae. —  i.  Codex  Ant- 
verpiensis  (A),  parchment,  loth  century,  corrected  probably  in 
i6th.  Lacunae  in  Contr.  ii,  5 ;  ix,  2 ;  Suas.  ii,  7. 

2.  Codex  Bruxellensis  (B),  formerly  Cusanus,  parchment,  loth 
century,  corrected  in  i6th.  Lacuna  in  Contr.  x,  5.   Written  by  two 
hands. 

3.  Codex  Vaticanus  (V),  parchment,  written  toward  the  end  of 
the    loth  century  and  shortly  afterward  corrected   by   another 
hand,  again  slightly  worked  over  in  the  I5th  century. 

All  three  of  these  codices  show  by  their  agreement  in  many 
corrections  and  omissions,  as  well  as  in  the  manner  of  writing 
the  Greek  words,  that  they  go  back  to  a  common  archetype  (C), 
but  they  were  derived  from  two  different  copies  of  it :  viz.  A  and 
B,  which  are  closely  akin  to  one  another,  from  one,  and  V  from 
the  other. 

As  regards  the  critical  value  of  A,  B  and  V,  A  and  B  are  more 
faithful  to  the  archetype  and  therefore  of  greater  authority, 
while  V  is  characterized  by  many  interpolations  of  a  talented  and 
learned  emendator.  Bursian  gives  B  the  preference  over  A,280  while 
H.  J.  Miiller  and  Konitzer381  and  Kiessling282  accord  equal  merit 
to  both.  The  corrections  of  A  and  B  came  mostly  from  editions 
and  have  therefore  no  other  critical  value  than  that  of  conjectures. 

280Cf.  Bursian's  edition,  Preface,  p.  x  :  "Nihil  tamen  isti  scribae  ex  arbi- 
trio  suo  mutaverunt,  ita  ut  codex  quamvis  corruptissimus  ubique  tamen 
veri  vestigia  nulla  interpolatione  obscurata  nobis  offerat  quibus  solis 
insistendum  est  ei  qui  auctoris  verbis  et  recensendis  et  emendandis  pris- 
tinum  suum  splendorem  his  libris  reddere  conatur." 

281  Quaest.  in  Sen.  pair,  crit.,  pp.  4  sq. 

282 Beitr.  zur  Texteskrit.  des  Khet.  Sen.,  p.  32. 


54  THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

4.  Codex  Toletanus  or  Covarruvianus  (T),  parchment,  copied 
from  V  in  the  i3th  century  and  corrected  probably  in  the  i6th. 

5.  Codex  Brugensis  (Bv),  parchment, copied  from  Tin  the  I5th 
century  before  it  was  corrected.     Both  T  and  Bv  are  therefore  for 
critical  purposes  to  a  great  extent  superseded  by  V,  from  which 
they  are  directly  or  indirectly  derived. 

6.  Codex  Vaticanus  (v),  parchment,   I5th  century,  very  small 
characters. 

7.  Codex  Bruxellensis  (D),  paper,   I5th  century,  with  all   the 
Greek  omitted,  a  blank  space  being  left  for  it.     Corrected  by  two 
hands  in  the  same  century.     It  contains  the  declamations  of  the 
pseudo-Quintilian,  the   Controversiae  and  Suasoriae  of  Seneca, 
and  the  beginning  of  the  Dialogus  attributed  to  Tacitus. 

8.  The  four  codices  used  by  Schott, — Covarruvianus,  Brugensis, 
Vaticanus   and  Augustodunensis.     Of  these   the  first  two  were 
treated  under  4  and  5  ;  the  Vaticanus  can  be  identified  neither 
with  V  nor  v  mentioned  above  under  3  and  6 ;  the  Augustodu- 
nensis has  disappeared.283 

2nd  MSS.  of  the  Excerpts  of  the  Controversiae. — i.  Codex 
Montepessulanus  (M),  parchment,  Qth  or  loth  century,  corrected 
shortly  afterwards  by  a  second  hand  and  much  later  by  a  third. 
The  Excerpts  are  preceded  by  the  Declamations  of  the  pseudo- 
Quintilian. 

2.  Codex  Parisinus  (P)  (formerly  Colbertinus),  parchment,  I3th 
century. 

3.  Codex  Parisinus  (S)    (formerly   Sorbonianus),   parchment, 
I3th  century.     Closes  with  the  word  "  actio  "  in  Excerpt  vi,  7. 

4.  Codex  Admontanus,  parchment,  I2th  century. 

5.  Codex  Berolinensis,  parchment,  I4th  century.     Contains  an 
"  Expositio  fratris  Nicholai  "  which  is  of  importance  for  the  text- 
criticism  in  so  far  that  in  some  cases  Seneca's  words  can  be  more 
easily  found  out  from  the  notes  in  which  they  are  quoted  for 
explanation  than  from  the  text  of  the  scribe. 

There  are  many  other  manuscripts   of  the   Excerpts.     The 

283  Cf.  Hofig,  De  Sen.  rhet.  quatt.  cod.  MSS.  Schott,  p.  6.  Hong  considers 
it  very  probable  that  all  four  go  back  to  one  archetype,  p.  8.  Schott  and 
Hofig  range  them  in  respect  to  value  and  importance  in  the  following  order  : 
Covarruvianus,  Vaticanus,  Brugensis,  Augustodunensis.  They  were  all 
written  on  parchment  and  contained  the  Greek;  p.  12  sq.  discusses  their 
relations  to  one  another  and  to  the  archetype. 


THE  THEMES  TREATED  BY  THE  ELDER  SENECA.      55 

Montepessulanus  is  by  far  the  best  of  all.  Although  carelessly 
written  by  an  ignorant  scribe,  it  is  quite  free  from  interpolations, 
with  which  the  others  are  teeming.  According  to  Hoffmann  the 
MS.  most  akin  to  the  Montepessulanus  is  the  Admontanus, 284 
although  the  latter  is  neither  derived  from  nor  a  copy  of  the 
former,  the  Admontanus  being  from  a  separate  codex  which, 
however,  contained  many  corrections  and  erasures. 

2.  Editions. 

The  Excerpts  are  found  among  the  works  of  Seneca  the  philoso- 
pher, printed  at  Naples  in  1475,  reprinted  in  1478. 

The  first  edition  of  the  Suasoriae  and  Controversiae  (in  this 
order),  with  the  prefaces  of  books  vii,  ix  and  x  and  some  of  the 
works  of  Seneca  the  philosopher,  was  printed  at  Venice  in  1490 
and  again  in  1492  and  1503.  In  this  edition  the  Greek  words 
are  omitted. 

The  editio  Frobeniana  was  brought  out  by  Erasmus  at  Basle 
in  1515.  It  is  like  the  Venetian  edition  except  that  in  it  the 
Suasoriae  and  Controversiae  follow  the  Excerpts  without  the 
interposition  of  some  of  the  smaller  works  of  the  philosopher 
Seneca. 

John  Hervagen  and  Bernard  Brand  printed  an  edition  at  Basle 
in  1557  in  which  the  Controversiae  precede  the  Suasoriae.  The 
Greek  is  omitted. 

The  Roman  edition  of  Muretus,  printed  in  1585,  claims  "  Com- 
plures  lacunas  quae  erant  in  controversiis,  etsi  non  omnes  (quis 
enim  hoc  mortalium  praestet?)  explevit  ex  codice  multae  aetatis 
at  fidei  de  bibliotheca  Vaticana."  The  order  of  the  books  is  the 

284  On  the  value  of  the  MSS.  of  the  Excerpts  for  restoring  the  text  of  the 
Controversiae,  since  the  Excerpts  were  prepared  from  an  older  and  better 
codex  than  the  archetype  of  the  existing  MSS.  of  the  Controversiae  and 
Suasoriae,  and  since  they  alone  contain  the  prefaces  of  the  first  four  books 
of  the  Controversiae,  cf.  Spengel,  Gelehrte  Anzeigen  der  bayrischen  Akad- 
emie  der  Wisstnschaften  xlvii  (1858),  pp.  i-io  ;  Kiessling,  Kh.  Mus.  xvi 
<i86i),  pp.  50  sq.  ;  Btitr.  zur  Texteskrit  des  Rhet.  Sen.,  pp.  32  sq.  ;  Konitzer, 
Quae st.  i n  Se n.  patr.  crit. ,  p.  12;  Hoffmann,  Ueber  eine  Admont.  Pergam- 
Handschr.  der  Exc.  des  alt.  Sen.,  p.  174.  Hoffmann  gives  a  full  description 
and  estimate  of  the  Admontanus,  based  on  a  comparison  with  the  Antver- 
piensis  and  Bruxellensis  on  one  hand,  and  the  Montepessulanus  on  the 
other,  cf.  pp.  173.  178.  Hoffman  also  thinks  that  the  Parisinus  and  Sor- 
bonianus  came  from  the  same  source  as  the  Admontanus,  cf.  p.  178. 


56  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER    SENECA.' 

same  as  in  the  Hervagian  edition,  but  the  Excerpts  of  books  i,  ii, 
vii,  ix  and  x  are  omitted. 

The  editions  thus  far  mentioned  attributed  the  Controversiae 
and  Suasoriae  to  Seneca  the  philosopher,  and  accordingly  joined 
them  to  his  works.  The  first  to  edit  them  separately  was 
Nicolaus  Faber  at  Paris  in  1587.  The  Controversiae  come  first, 
then  the  Suasoriae,  and  then  the  Excerpts  (Declamations). 

Andreas  Schott  of  Heidelberg  in  1603.  Of  this  there  are 
several  reprints,  "  cumuberioribus  notis  et  coniecturis  Nic.  Fabri, 
Andr.  Schotti,  I.  Gruteri,  Fr.  Jureti,  I.  Lipsii,  lo.  Petreii,  Fer. 
Rinciani,  I.  Opsoroei."  As  stated  above,  this  edition  was  based 
on  the  four  codices, — Toletanus  (Covarruvianus),  Brugensis, 
Vaticanus,  and  Augustodunensis,  the  preference  given  to  the 
first. 

J.  F.  Gronovius  at  Lyons  in  1649.  The  corrections  of  Tole- 
tanus (t),  which  Schott  incorporated  into  his  edition,  passed  into 
that  of  Gronovius  and  thence  into  the  Vulgate  or  Elzevir  edition 
of  1672.  This  contains  the  valuable  prefaces,  notes,  and  ingenious 
emendations  of  Faber,  Schott,  Gronovius,  and  especially  of 
Johannes  Schulting. 

Conrad  Bursian,  Leipzig,  1857,  based  on  the  Antverpiensis  and 
Bruxellensis  (preference  given  to  the  latter).  The  Vaticanus  was 
not  known  to  Bursian. 

Adolph  Kiessling,  Leipzig,  1872.  Kiessling  made  use  of  the 
critical  material  accumulated  since  Bursian's  edition. 

H.  J.  Muller,  Vienna,  Prague  and  Leipzig,  1887. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  57 


PART  III.— THEMES  OF  THE  SUASORIAE  AND 
CONTROVERSIAE. 

I.— THE  SOURCES. 

From  what  has  been  said  in  Parts  I  and  II  in  regard  to  the 
subjects  treated  by  the  writers  of  Suasoriae  it  is  apparent  that 
the  inquirer  as  to  the  sources  whence  these  subjects  were  drawn, 
is  confronted  by  a  vagueness  and  confusion  in  the  material  with 
which  he  has  to  deal,  which  make  definite  statements  difficult  in 
most  cases  and  in  many  impossible.  Two  facts  may  be  premised 
with  certainty. 

First :  that  at  the  period  of  Seneca  the  Elder  a  great  amount 
of  rhetorical  material  had  accumulated  "  in  stock,"  as  it  were, 
for  the  free  use  of  the  declaimers.  We  find  traces  of  this  accu- 
mulation from  the  time  of  Sulla,  when  the  productions  of  the 
rhetoricians  seem  to  have  first  taken  on  a  Roman  coloring. 
With  the  opening  of  schools  of  rhetoric  in  Latin,  modelled  on  the 
Greek,  there  would  naturally  arise  a  Latin  paraphrasing  of  the 
topics  on  which  the  teachers  of  the  Greek  schools  had  so  long 
employed  their  skill.  The  Suasoriae,  owing  to  their  simpler 
nature,  seem  to  have  reached  a  complete  development  earlier 
than  the  Controversiae.  Thus  we  find  in  Ad  Herennium  iii,  2,  2 
as  a  subject  of  deliberation,  whether  "  Karthago  tollenda  an  re- 
liquenda  videatur  "  ;285  "  ut  si  Hannibal  consulat  cum  ex  Italia  Kar- 
thaginem  arcessitur,  in  Italia  remaneat  an  domum  redeat  an  in 
Aegyptum  profectus  occupet  Alexandriam ";  "ut  si  deliberet 
senatus  captives  ab  hostibus  redimat  an  non  "  ;286  "  ut  si  deliberet 
senatus  (bello  Italico)  solvatne  legibus  Scipionem  ut  eum  liceat 
ante  tempus  consulem  fieri  ";  "  ut  si  deliberet  senatus  bello  Italico, 
sociis  civitatem  det  an  non  "  ;  iii,  5,  8  ;  "  qui  a  Poeno  circumsessi 
deliberant,  quid  agant."287  All  these  subjects  may  be  placed  as 

285  Cf.  Cicero,  De  inv.  i,  8,  1 1  :   "  si  Karthaginem  relinquerimus  incolumem 
num  quid  sit  incommodi  ad  rem  publicam  preventurum  "  ;  and&fV.  12,  17: 
"utrum  Karthago  diruatur  an  Karthaginensibus  reddatur  an  eo  colonia  de- 
ducatur." 

286  Cf.  Cicero,  De  Orat.  iii,  28,  109  :  "  placeatne  a  Karthaginensibus  cap- 
tivos  nostros  redditis  suis  recuperafi  ?" 

287  Cf.  Cicero,  De  inv.  ii,  57,  171:   "necesse  est  Casilinenses  se  dedere 
Hannibali  .  .  .  nisi  si  malunt  fame   perire  .  .  .  sive   velint  Casilinenses  se 
dedere  sive  famem  perpeti  atque  ita  perire,  necesse  est  Casilinum  venire  in 
Hannibalis  potestatem." 


58     THE  THEMES  TREATED  BY  THE  ELDER  SENECA. 

parallels  to  those  of  the  seven  extant  Suasoriae  of  Seneca.  In  Ad 
Herennium  i,  3,  5  we  find  as  the  subject  of  a  declamation  "  pro  viro 
forti  contra  parricidam  " ;  in  i,  14,  24  are  found  two  subjects  of 
Controversiae,  viz.  "  ut  ille,  qui  de  eo  servo  qui  dominum  occi- 
derat,  supplicium  sumpsit,  cui  frater  esset,  antequam  tabulas  testa- 
menti  aperuit,  cum  is  servus  testamento  manumissus  esset  "  ;  "  ut 
ille,  quid  ad  diem  commeatus  non  venit,  quod  aquae  interclusis- 
sent " ;  in  i,  15,  25  is  found  another,  viz.  "ut  Orestes,  cum  se 
defendit  in  matrem  conferens  crimen."  These  three  subjects  seem 
to  have  been  taken  from  the  Greek  rhetoricians.288  Many  other  sub- 
jects of  Controversiae  are  found  in  Ad  Herennium,  as  i,  13,  23  on  the 
conflict  of  four  different  laws  in  the  case  of  Malleolus  the  matricide, 
viz.  "  Si  furiosus  existet,  adgnatum  gentiliumque  in  eo  pecuni- 
aque  eius  potestas  esto  "  ;  "  Qui  parentem  necasse  iudicatus  erit, 
ut  is  obvolutus  et  obligatus  corio  devehatur  in  profluentem." 
"  Paterfamilias  uti  super  familia  pecuniave  sua  legaverit,  ita  ius 
esto."  "  Si  paterfamilias  intestatus  moritur,  familia  pecuniaque 
eius  adgnatum  gentiliumque  esto."289  Ad  Herennium  i,  14,  24: 
"  ut  Caepio  ad  tribunes  plebis  de  exercitus  amissione."  29°  The 
fourth  book  of  Ad  Herennium  is  full  of  extracts  from  Controver- 
siae, while  from  Cicero's  De  inventione  a  long  list  might  be  made 
out,  the  subject-matter  being  taken  from  both  Roman  and  Greek 
history.  As  examples  of  the  former  compare  Cicero,  De  inv.  i, 

30,  48  :  "  velut  [Horatii  factum  a  populoapprobatum,  quod  occidit 
sororem,   cum   ilia   devictum  Curiatium  hostem  defleret ;  velut] 
Gracchi  patris  factum  ....";  ii,  26,  78,  also  on  the  killing  of  his  sis- 
ter by  Horatius.  As  examples  from  Greek  history  :  i,  30,  47  :  "  nam 
si  Rhodiis  turpe  non  est  portorium  locare.  ne  Hermocreonti  quidem 
turpe   est  conducere " ;   ii,  23,  69 :   "  cum  Thebani  Lacedaemo- 
nios   bello  superavissent   et  fere  most  est  Graiis,  cum  inter  se 
bellum  gessissent,  ut  ei,  qui  vicissent  tropaeum  aliquod  in  finibus 

288Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  vii,  4,  14  sq.  ;  Cicero,  De  inv.  i,  13,  18  ;    ii, 

31,  96  ;  Quintilian,  /.  c.  4,  8. 

289  Cf.  Cicero,  De  inv.   ii,  50,  148,  where  the  first,  third  and  fourth  laws 
stated  above  are  mentioned  and  the  punishment  prescribed  by  the  second 
is  said  to  have  been  inflicted,  the  name  of  the  criminal   however  not  being 
given.     The  point  at  issue  is  the  same   in  both  cases,  viz.  whether  the 
guilty  man  had  or  had  not  the  right  to  make  a  will.     For  other  later  cases 
of  the  crossing  of  laws  cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  ix,  13;  Quintilian,  Decl.  359; 
Calpur.  Flaccus,  Decl.  14  ;   15. 

290  Cf.  Cicero,  De  oral,  ii,  28,  124  :    "  illam  Norbani  seditionem  ex  luctu 
civium  et  ex  Caepionis  odio,  qui  exercitum  amiserat  ..." 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  59 

statuerent  victoriae  modo  in  praesentiam  declarandae  causa,  non 
ut  in  perpetuum  belli  memoria  maneret  aeneum  statuerunt  tro- 
paeum.  Accusantur  apud  Amphictyonas,  id  est  apud  commune 
Graeciae  consilium."  At  this  period  the  subjects  treated  still 
appear  to  be  such  as  had  some  sort  of  basis  in  mythology  or 
history,  or  some  possible  connection  with  the  facts  of  real  life. 
But  the  development  toward  the  unreal  and  impossible  seems  to 
have  gained  rapid  headway,  for  we  find  Tiberius  propounding  to 
the  rhetoricians  such  questions  as  "Who  was  the  mother  of 
Hecuba  ?  "  "  What  songs  did  the  Sirens  sing?  "291  It  seems  prob- 
able that  this  occurred  during  Tiberius's  voluntary  exile  at 
Rhodes,  as  we  know  that  while  there  he  was  in  the  habit  of 
attending  the  rhetorical  schools.  At  this  time,  which  nearly 
coincides  with  that  of  the  elder  Seneca's  second  coming  to  Rome, 
both  the  accumulation  of  subjects  for  declamation  and  their 
development  in  artificiality  and  absurdity  seem  to  have  been 
well-nigh  complete. 

The  second  fact  which  may  be  definitely  asserted  in  connection 
with  the  subjects  employed  by  the  declaimers,  is  that  from  this 
vast  general  fund  of  fact  and  fantasy,  the  rhetoricians  appropriated 
whatever  portions  suited  their  purpose,  changing  and  arranging 
at  will,  without  a  thought  of  the  ultimate  originals  and  without 
concern  for  their  accurate  reproduction.  The  subjects  of  Seneca's 
Controversiae  as  also  of  the  Declamations  of  the  pseudo-Quin- 
tilian  and  Calpurnius  Flaccus,  by  their  very  nature  exclude  the 
possibility  of  an  exact  and  indubitable  tracing  to  their  origin.  In 
their  extant  form  and  conception,  at  least,  they  were  born  in  the 
exuberant  fancy  of  the  rhetoricians,  when  and  by  whose  agency  in 
each  case  it  is  now  impossible  to  ascertain.  A  great  many  of  the 
themes  must  undoubtedly  have  come  to  the  Latin  rhetorical 
schools  from  the  Greek,  as  is  evident  from  the  political  and 
social  conditions  they  presuppose ;  this  will  be  shown  below  in 
individual  instances  by  reference  to  the  rhetorical  writings  of 
Hermogenes.  As  has  been  said  above,  and  as  will  be  proved  by  a 
comparison  of  Seneca's  Controversiae  with  the  Declamationes  of 
the  pseudo-Quintilian  and  Calpurnius  Flaccus,  many  of  the  sub- 
jects had  become  stereotyped  as  school  exercises,  passing  from 
one  rhetorician  to  another  and  from  one  school  to  another  through 
the  various  periods  and  phases  of  rhetorical  study.  When  once  a 

291  Cf.  Suetonius,  Tib.  c.  70. 


6O  THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

stock  of  subjects  had  accumulated,  it  required  but  little  imagina- 
tion to  form  new  ones  by  slightly  varying  the  old.  Thus  one  of 
the  themes  most  highly  favored  in  the  schools  seems  to  have  been 
the  disinheriting  of  a  son292 .  Now  a  father  may  disinherit  a  son 
for  marrying  against  his  will,  for  refusing  to  slay  his  adulterous 
mother,  for  declining  to  be  adopted  by  a  rich  man,  for  killing  his 
adulterous  brother,  etc.  The  same  variety  of  treatment  is 
possible  with  many  other  subjects  as  a  glance  at  either  Seneca  or 
the  pseudo-Quintilian  will  show.  The  influence  of  analogy  also 
must  have  been  very  great  in  this  constant  and  kaleidoscopic 
rearrangement  of  elements  already  at  hand.  In  tracing  the 
sources  of  the  themes  treated  by  Seneca,  as  well  as  of  individual 
dicta  in  his  writings,  it  is  necessary  to  guard  continually  against 
assuming  as  their  fontes  passages  in  earlier  classical  writers  which, 
although  strikingly  similar,  are  themselves  also  derived  from  a 
common  original.  Coincidence  must  not  be  mistaken  for  deriva- 
tion. These  f antes  are  in  many  cases  utterly  lost  or  hopelessly 
obscured,  and  one  might  search  for  them  in  vain  throughout  the 
whole  extent  of  pre-Augustan  classical  literature.  No  absolute 
rule  of  discrimination  can  be  laid  down.  The  following  pages  are 
an  effort  to  classify  the  themes  treated  by  the  elder  Seneca  and 
to  give  what  has  been  ascertained  about  the  origin  of  such  as  may 
with  reasonable  certainty  be  traced  to  a  definite  source.  The  work 
is  largely  tentative  but  will  not  be  without  value  if  it  shall  interest 
others  to  search  for  additional  facts  along  the  same  lines.293 

Suasoria  i. 

Alexander  deliberates  whether  he  shall  cross  the  ocean. 

The  theme  and  the  discussion  in  the  Divisio,  in  regard  to 
addressing  a  ruler,  were  probably  suggested  by  the  speech  of  the 
philosopher  Anaxarchus,  in  which  he  proposed,  after  the  subjuga- 
tion of  Asia  by  Alexander,  that  the  latter  should  be  deified  and 
receive  divine  homage  in  the  manner  of  the  Persian  kings. 
Callisthenes  as  a  defender  of  Greek  manliness  protested  against 

292  In   the    pseudo-Quintilian   there    are  22  cases  of  disinheritance;   for 
Seneca  cf.  the  classification  of  subjects  below. 

293  Cf.  Dirksen,  Ueber  die  durch  die  griechischen  und  lateinischen  Rhe- 
toren  angewendete  Methode  der  Auswahl  und  Benutzung  von  Beispielen 
romisch-rechtlichen  Inhalts.     Abhandlungen  der  Kdni^lichen  Akademie  der 
Wissenschaften.     Berlin,  1847,  i,  pp.  48-77. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA.  6l 

this  fulsome  adulation  but  met  with  a  tragic  end.294  In  Contr.  vii, 
7,  19  Seneca  mentions  that  when  this  Suasoria  was  delivered  on  a 
certain  occasion,  in  the  rhetorical  school,  a  voice  exclaimed: 
"  Quousque  invicte,"  which  of  course  recalls  Cicero's  first  oration 
against  Cataline.  The  subject  of  this  suasoria  seems  moreover  to 
have  been  one  of  the  stock  topics  of  the  schools,  as  it  is  among 
those  enumerated  by  Quintilian  as  current  among  the  rhetori- 
cians.295 The  theme  is,  however,  based  on  an  historical  fact.296 

Suasoria  ii. 

The  three  hundred  Lacedaemonians  sent  against  Xerxes,  when 
the  three  hundred  sent  from'  all  Greece  have  fled,  deliberate 
whether  they  themselves  shall  flee. 

The  historical  kernel  of  this  second  Suasoria  is  the  assembly  of 
the  several  Greek  contingents  at  Thermopylae  and  their  subse- 
quent dismissal  by  Leonidas,  King  of  the  Spartans.297  On  the 
question  of  "  trecenti  "  vs.  "treceni"  Bursian  remarks  :  "  Cum 
per  totam  suasoriam  (excepting  §  5)  semper  de  '  trecentis  '  sermo 
fiat  ....  rhetor  finxisse  statuendus  est  e  singulis  Graecis  urbibus 
quotquot  viribus  pollebant,  trecenos  milites  Spartanis  auxilio 
missos  fuisse,  quod  non  magis  contra  historiae  fidem  peccat  quam 
quae  de  Cimone,  Phidia,  Parrhasio,  Popillio,  aliis  referuntur."  As 
may  be  seen  from  the  account  of  Herodotus  the  other  Greeks  did 
not  flee  but  were  dismissed  by  Leonidas.298 

Suasoria  iii. 

Agamemnon  deliberates  whether  he  shall  immolate  Iphigenia, 
since  Calchas  asserts  that  otherwise  the  voyage  cannot  take 
place. 

The  theme  of  this  Suasoria  was  well  known  from  the  tragedians, 
and  therefore  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  the  rhetoricians  made 
use  of  such  a  favorite  subject.  In  fact,  it  seems  to  have  been  one 
of  those  most  popular  in  the  schools.  Compare  Petronius,  i,  6  : 
"  Ingens  scholasticorum  turba  in  porticum  venit,  ut  apparebat,  ab 

294  Cf.  Curtius,  viii,   I,  45;    v,   13;    Arrian,  iv,  9,  4;    Plutarch,  Alex.  cc. 
50  sq. 

295  Cf.  Inst.  Orat.  iii,  8,  16 ;  vii,  4,  2. 

296  Cf.  Curtius,  ix,  9  :  "  Pervicax  cupido  incessit  (sc.  Alexandrum)  visendi 
Oceanum  adeundique  terminos  mundi." 

297  Cf.  Herodotus,  vii,  220  sq. 

298  Cf.  also  Cornelius  Nepos,  Themist.  3. 


62  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

extemporabili  declamatione  nescio  cuius,  qui  Agamemnonis  sua- 
soriam  exceperat";  cf.  also  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  ii,  13,  13, 
Lucretius  considered  it  worthy  of  some  pathetic  verses  :  "  Et 
moestum  simul  ante  aras  adstare  parentem  Sensit  et  hunc  propter 
ferrum  celare  ministros,  Adspectuque  suo  lacrimas  effundare 
civis.  Muta  metu  terram  genibus  submissa  petebat."  : 

Suasoria  iv. 

Alexander  the  Great  deliberates  whether  he  shall  enter  Babylon 
when  by  the  response  of  the  augur  he  had  been  forewarned  of 
danger. 

The  theme  of  this  Suasoria  is  taken  from  history.  Compare 
Arrian,  vii,  l6,  5  :  "  'Att^avSpoq  ok  wq  rov  Tfyp-qra  Trora/iOK  %uv  TTJ 


XaXdaiiov   ol  Aoytot   xdl  dxafafoyTss  diro   ra»v  iratpiov  ISiovTO 
Tyv   iiti   BaftoXtivoq   eXaffiv.      Xdytov  yap   f^ovivai   fftpiaiv   ix   TOO 
roo  ByXou  fj.7j  Tipoq  dyaftoo  ol  ilvai  -nyv  -dpadov  ryv   £<;  BaftuXaJva   iv   raj 
TOTS  TOV  Se  dTtoxpivaff&at   auroTc  Myos  [rot)]   Evpntidj)  a>ds  ;  ^ 

ffTtq  elxd£st  xaXw^  .     l  au  dey  a>  fiaffilso,'  syaffav  ol 
7)   Tipbq  dufffj-dq   dtpopwv  auroc   ftyds   Tyv    GTpaTidv    ravTy 

sXftelv'   dX^d  ixTtepieXftuiv  Tzpoz  £a>  /ua/Uov1  '       Compare  also 
Pompeius  Trogus,  Epitome  of  Justinus,  Philippicarum  xii. 

Suasoria  v. 

The  Athenians  deliberate  whether  they  shall  remove  their 
Persian  trophies,  since  Xerxes  threatens  to  return  unless  they 
do  so. 

The  only  element  of  reality  in  the  subject  of  this  Suasoria  is 
the  reference  to  the  custom  of  preserving  trophies  taken  from 
defeated  foes. 

Suasoria  vi. 

Cicero  deliberates  whether  he  shall  implore  mercy  from  Antony. 

The  fictitious  argument  of  this  Suasoria  was  suggested  by  the 
enmity  between  Cicero  and  M.  Antonius,.  which  led  to  the  violent 
death  of  the  former.  Moreover  this  theme  and  that  of  the  next 
Suasoria  also,  seem  to  have  belonged  to  the  stock  subjects  of  the 
rhetorical  schools.300  It  may  be  said  that  the  signal  success  of 
Cicero's  life  and  its  tragic  end  were  favorite  topics  with  the  later 
Roman  writers  in  general.301 

299  De  rer.  nat.  i,  95  sq.  300Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  iii,  8,  46. 

301  Cf.  Morawski,  De  rhet.  Zat.,  pp.  16  sq. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  63 

Suasoria  vii. 

Cicero  deliberates  whether  he  shall  burn  his  own  writings,  since 
Antony  promised  him  security  if  he  should  do  so. 

On  the  theme  of  the  seventh  and  last  Suasoria  compare  what 
was  said  above  in  regard  to  the  sixth.  Compare  also  Suas.  vi, 
14:  "Solent  enim  scholastici  declamitare :  deliberat  Cicero  an 
salutem  promittente  Antonio  orationes  suas  comburat.  Haec 
inepte  ficta  cuilibet  videri  potest." 

Controversies  i,  i. 
Patruus  abdicans. — Liberi  parentes  alant  aut  vinciantur. 

Two  brothers,  one  of  whom  had  a  son,  disagreed.  When  the 
uncle  became  needy  the  nephew  against  the  prohibition  of  his 
father  supported  him.  Being  disinherited  by  his  father  for  this, 
he  was  silent.  He  was  adopted  by  the  uncle  who  by  receiving 
an  inheritance  became  rich.  Then  the  young  man's  father  began 
to  suffer  want  and  was  supported  by  his  son  against  the  prohibi- 
tion of  the  uncle,  who  thereupon  disinherited  the  young  man. 

The  subjects  of  the  support  of  the  aged,  and  disinheritance  were 
two  of  the  revelling  grounds  of  the  declaimers,  cf.  Contr.  iii,  19; 
vii,  4  ;  Quintilian,  Decl.  maj.,  5;  Quintilian,  Inst.  Oral,  v,  10,  16 
and  vii,  6,  5. 

Contr oversia  i,  3. 
Incesta  saxo  deiciatur. 

A  priestess,  accused  of  incest,  before  she  was  hurled  from  the 
rock  invoked  Vesta.  She  remained  alive  and  was  demanded 
again  for  a  repetition  of  the  penalty. 

This  is  a  fictitious  law  of  the  schools,  for  by  Roman  law  an 
incestuous  priestess  was  buried  alive.  The  penalty  imagined  by 
the  rhetoricians  may  have  had  its  origin  in  a  confusion  of  the  well- 
known  story  of  Sappho's  precipitating  herself  from  a  rock  on 
account  of  misfortune  in  love,  and  the  fact  that  traitors  in  the  early 
time  at  Rome  were  thrown  down  from  the  Tarpeian  Rock.  In 
273  B.  C.  a  Vestal  was  hanged.302 

Controversies  i,  4. 
Fortis  sine  manibus. 

A  brave  man,  who  had  lost  both  hands  in  war,  caught  his  wife 
and  her  paramour  inflagrante  and  ordered  his  son  to  kill  them. 

302  cf.  Orosius,  iv,  5,  9. 


64  THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

The  young  man  refused,  and  the  adulterer  escaped ;  whereupon 
the  son  is  disinherited. 

This  theme  is  very  similar  to  that  of  Quintilian,  Decl.  330. 
It  was  very  likely  suggested  per  contrarium  by  the  story  of 
Orestes.303 

Controversia  i,  5. 
Raptor  duarum. 

A  man  raped  two  maidens  in  the  same  night ;  one  demanded 
his  death,  the  other  marriage. 

This  seems  to  have  been  a  favorite  subject  with  both  the  Roman 
and  Greek  rhetoricians,  and  was  in  all  probability  transferred 
from  the  latter  to  the  Roman  schools.  It  is  introduced  by 
Hermogenes  in  his  "  xep\  rtiv  araffzuv,  "30i  and  is  the  theme,  in  a 
more  developed  form,  with  a  sequel  of  Calpurnius  Flaccus, 
Decl.  49. 

Controversia  i,  6. 

Archipiratae  filia. 

A  man  captured  by  pirates  wrote  to  his  father  in  regard  to  a 
ransom  but  was  not  ransomed.  The  daughter  of  the  pirate-chief 
compelled  the  captive  to  swear  that  he  would  marry  her  if  he 
were  freed.  He  did  so,  and  thereupon  the  daughter  left  her  father 
and  followed  the  youth.  He  returned  to  his  father  and  married 
her.  His  father  afterward  commanded  him  to  divorce  the  pirate's 
daughter  and  marry  a  certain  orphan.  When  he  refused,  his 
father  disinherited  him. 

For  the  introduction  of  the  orphan  reference  may  be  made  to 
the  Attic  law  quoted  in  Terence,  Phormio  125,  which  compelled 
orphans  to  marry  their  next  of  kin,  and  also  made  it  obligatory 
on  the  latter  to  receive  them  as  wives.  A  somewhat  similar  sub- 
ject is  found  in  Quintilian,  Decl.  376. 

Controversia  ii,  5. 

Torta  a  tyranno  pro  marito. 

A  wife  was  tortured  by  a  tyrant  in  order  to  obtain  from  her 
information  as  to  the  complicity  in  a  plot  of  her  husband.  She 
could  not  be  forced  to  tell.  Afterward  the  husband  killed  the 
tyrant  and  divorced  his  wife  on  the  charge  of  barrenness,  as  she 
had  borne  him  no  children  in  a  period  of  five  years.  She  sued  him 
for  ingratitude. 

303  Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  iii,  n,  4  sq. 

304  Cf.  Spengel,  Rhet.  Grace,  ii,  171. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  65 

This  law  (ingrati  actid),  like  so  many  made  use  of  in  the 
declamations,  was  an  Attic  one.805  A  similar  case  of  iniusti  re- 
pudii  is  treated  in  Quintilian,  DecL  251,  only  that  in  this  latter 
case  the  wife  was  raped  and  demanded  marriage  instead  of  the 
death  of  the  ravisher.  The  subject  of  wife  and  tyrant  is  also 
introduced  by  Hermogenes,  "  -Kepi  ra>v  <rrd<rea»,  "306  in  the  follow- 
ing form  :  A  wife  showed  her  husband  the  way  to  a  tyrant,  a 
secret  which  no  one  else  had  been  able  to  discover.  The  husband 
killed  the  tyrant  and  then  accused  his  wife  of  adultery  with  him. 

Controversies  iv,  2. 
Sacerdos  integer  sit. 

The  Pontifex  L.  Caecilius  Metellus  lost  his  eyesight  while 
rescuing  the  Palladium  from  the  burning  temple  of  Vesta.  There- 
upon the  priesthood  was  denied  him. 

This  theme  is  taken  from  history  ;  the  occurrence  took  place 
B.  C.  24i.307 

Controversia  iv,  5. 
Privignus  medicus. 

A  man  disinherited  his  son.  The  latter  studied  medicine,  and 
when  his  father  fell  ill  and  was  given  up  by  the  other  physicians, 
restored  him  to  health.  He  was  thereupon  restored  to  his  father's 
favor.  His  step-mother  having  fallen  ill  was  also  despaired  of  by 
the  physicians.  The  father  asked  the  son  to  cure  her  and  upon 
his  refusal  disinherited  him. 

This  theme  seems  to  be  evidently  from  the  Greek  as  it  is  used 
by  Lucian  in  the  " 


Controversia  v,  5. 
The  well-known  story  of  Parrhasius  and  the  captive. 

Controversia  v,  6. 

Raptus  in  veste  rnuliebri.  —  Lex  :  Impudicus  contione  prohibeatur. 

A  fair   youth  made   a  wager  that  he   would  walk   in  public 

dressed  in  female  attire.    He  did  so,  and  was  raped  by  ten  youths. 

He  brought  action  against  them  on  a  charge  of  violence  and  they 

303  Cf.  Valerius  Maximus,  ii,  6,  6  de  Areopago  ;  v,  3  de  Phocione. 

306  Spengel,  Khet.  Graec.  ii,  137. 

307  Cf.  Livy,  Epitome  xix. 

308  Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat,  vii,  2,  17. 

5 


66  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

were  convicted.  Being  excluded  from  the  public  assembly 
by  the  magistrate,  the  young  man  brought  action  against  him  on 
a  charge  of  insult. 

This  theme  was  not  founded  on  a  fictitious  law  of  the  schools 
but  on  the  Attic  code.309  Hermogenes  in  his  "  r:sp\  rd>v  ffrdffecw  "31° 
uses  as  an  example  the  case  of  a  youth  who  used  cosmetics,  and 
was  thereupon  charged  with  x 


Controversia  v,  7. 

Trecenti  ab  imperatore  non  recepti.  —  Lex  :  Nocte  portas 
aperire  in  bello  non  liceat. 

Three  hundred  captives  fleeing  from  the  enemy  came  to  the 
gates  at  night.  The  commander  would  not  open  to  them  and 
they  were  killed  before  the  gates.  After  a  victory  the  com- 
mander was  charged  with  injuring  the  state. 

This  theme  must  have  been  current  in  the  Greek  schools  also, 
as  it  is  given  by  Hermogenes  "  xepl  eup^ffsax;  "  ft 


311 


Controversia  vi,  5. 

Iphicrates  reus.  —  Lex  :  Qui  vim  in  iudicio  fecerit,  capite  puni- 
atur. 

Iphicrates,  having  been  twice  defeated  in  battle  by  the  king  of 
the  Thracians,  concluded  a  treaty  with  him  and  married  his 
daughter.  When  he  returned  to  Athens  and  pleaded  his  cause 
certain  Thracians  were  seen  about  the  court  armed  with  knives, 
and  Iphicrates  himself,  although  a  defendant,  drew  his  sword. 
When  the  judges  were  called  upon  to  give  their  opinion  they 
openly  pronounced  for  an  acquittal.  Iphicrates  was  thereupon 
accused  of  having  used  violence  in  court. 

This  theme  appears  to  be  taken  from  history,  but  with  the  facts 
a  good  deal  modified.  Xenophon312  states  that  Iphicrates  carried 
on  war  against  the  Thracians.  Cornelius  Nepos,  Iphicrates  2,  i: 
"  Bellum  cum  Thracibus  gessit  ;  Seuthem  socium  Atheniensium 
in  regnum  restituit  ";  compare  also  Aeschinus,  xep}  -apar.peffpzias, 
27-29;  Diodorus  Siculus,  xvi,  21;  Plutarch,  Apoph.,  1876; 
Aristotle,  Rhet.  ii,  23,  6  :  "  .  .  .  .  <j>  typrjffa.ro  "Itpupdrrjq 
<;  el  xodoir  uv  rdq  vaix;  £T 


309  Cf.  Aeschines  against  Timarchus.     3n  Cf.  Spengel,  Rhet.  Grace,  ii,  196. 

310  Cf.  Spengel,  Rhet.  Graec.  ii,  147.      312  ffellen.  iv,  8,  34  sq. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA.  67 

slra 


The  same  topic  is  treated  in  Quintilian,  DecL  386.313 

Controversia  vi,  7. 
Demens  qui  filio  cessit  uxorem. 

A  man  having  two  sons  married  a  second  wife.  When  one  of 
the  young  men  was  ill  nigh  unto  death,  the  physicians  said  the 
cause  of  his  illness  was  a  love  affair.  When  the  father  compelled  the 
son  at  the  sword's  point  to  tell  him  the  truth,  the  young  man 
confessed  that  he  loved  his  step-mother.  The  father  gave  up  his 
wife  to  him  and  thereupon  was  charged  with  insanity  by  his 
other  son. 

It  seems  evident  that  this  theme  is  taken  from  the  history  of 
Seleucus  who  gave  up  his  wife  Stratonice  to  his  sick  son 
Antiochus.314  A  similar  case  is  treated  in  Quintilian,  DecL  291 
and  Calpurnius  Flaccus,  DecL  46,  except  that  in  this  latter 
case  it  is  a  brother  who  at  the  request  of  his  father  yields  his  wife 
to  his  sick  brother  and  is  afterward  caught  in  adultery  with  his 
former  wife. 

Controversia  vii,  2. 

Popilius  Ciceronis  interfector. 

Compare  on  this  theme  the  remarks  made  on  Suasoriae  vi 
and  vii.315 

Controversia  vii,  6. 

Demens  qui  servo  filiam  iunxit. 

A  tyrant  permitted  the  slaves  to  outrage  their  mistresses.  The 
chief  men  of  the  state  fled  and  among  them  one  who  had  a  son 
and  a  daughter.  While  all  the  other  slaves  outraged  their  mis- 
tresses his  slave  saved  the  daughter  from  this  fate.  After  the 
tyrant  was  killed  and  the  chiefs  had  returned  the  slaves  were 
crucified.  But  the  faithful  slave  was  set  free  by  his  master  who 
gave  him  his  daughter  as  a  wife.  Thereupon  the  son  charged 
his  father  with  insanity. 

This  theme  was  taken  from  the  history  of  the  Volsinii,  the 
inhabitants  of  a  city  in  Etruria  who,  becoming  enervated  by 
excessive  luxury,  were  overpowered  by  their  slaves  and  freedman. 
The  tyrant  is  an  addition  made  to  the  story  by  the  rhetoricians.316 

313  Cf.  also  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  v,  12,  10. 

314  Cf.  Plutarch,  Demetrius  c.  28  ;  Valerius  Maximus,  v,  7,  Ext.  I. 

315  Cf.  also  Livy,  Epit.  cxx. 

316  Cf.  Valerius  Maximus,  ix,  i,  Ext.  2  ;  Orosius,  iv,  5,  3;  Aurelius  Victor, 
De  viris  illustribus  c.  xxxvi. 


68  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

Controversia  viii,  6. 
Pater  naufragus  divitis  socer. 

A  rich  man  three  times  importuned  a  poor  man  to  give  him  his 
daughter  in  marriage,  and  the  poor  man  three  times  refused,  but 
having  started  with  his  daughter  on  a  voyage  he  was  shipwrecked 
on  the  estate  of  the  rich  man  who  again  asks  for  the  daughter  as 
his  wife.  The  poor  man  wept  in  silence.  After  the  marriage 
they  return  to  the  city  where  the  poor  man  wishes  to  lead  his 
daughter  before  the  magistrate,  but  the  rich  man  opposes  this. 

This  theme  may  easily  have  been  formed  on  the  analogy  of 
Plautus,  Trinum.  Act  iii,  Scene  2,  where  the  poor  but  proud 
Lesbonicus  refuses  to  give  his  sister  to  Lysiteles  without  a  mar- 
riage portion. 

Controversia  ix,  2. 
Maiestatis  laesae  sit  actio. 

The  proconsul  Flamininus,  at  the  request  of  his  mistress  while 
at  table,  who  said  that  she  never  had  witnessed  a  decapitation, 
had  a  condemned  man  executed.  He  is  thereupon  accused  of 
laesae  maiestatis. 

This  theme  is  based  upon  an  historical  fact.  L.  Flamininus  was 
expelled  from  the  senate  by  Cato  when  censor  in  184  B.  C, 
because  of  his  conduct  seven  years  before,  when  he  wantonly 
killed  a  chief  of  the  Boii,  who  had  taken  refuge  in  his  camp. 
Valerius  Maximus  agrees  with  Seneca  that  this  was  done  to  please 
a  mistress,  while  Valerius  Antias,  cited  in  Livy,  xxxix,  43,  gives  a 
similar  story.  Livy  and  Plutarch  say  that  the  cruel  act  was  done 
to  please  a  favorite  boy.317 

II.— CLASSIFICATION. 

A. —  The  Suasoriae. 

I. — Simple  (whether  something  is  or  is  not  to  be  done),  i,  vi. 
Duplex  (a  choice  between  two  alternatives),  ii,  iii,  iv,  v,  vii. 
II. — According  to  the  sources : 

1.  Historical,  iv. 

2.  Suggested  by  an  historical  occurrence,  i,  ii. 

3.  Derived  from  the  poets,  iii. 

4.  Fictitious,  v,  vi,  vii. 

317  Cf.  Livy,  xxxix,  42;  Cicero,  De  senectute  12;  Plutarch,  Cato  c.  17; 
Flamininus  c.  18;  Valerius  Maximus,  ii,  9,  3;  Aurelius  Victor,  De  viris 
illustribus  47. 


THE  THEMES  TREATED  BY  THE  ELDER  SENECA.      69 

B. —  The  Contr oversiae* 
I. — General  character  of  the  suit. 


J>  3>  5- 
ii,  7. 
iii,  5,  9- 
iv,  i,  4,  6. 
v,  i,  6,  7. 
vi,  3,  4,  5,  6,  8. 
vii,  3,  5>  7,  8. 
viii,  i,  6. 
ix,  2,  4,  5,  6. 
x,  i,  4.  5,  6. 


i.  Criminal 


2.  Civil: 


i,  i,  4,  6,  7,  8. 

ii,  i,  2. 

iii,  i,  2,  3,  4,  6,  8. 

iv,  3,  5,  8. 

v,  2,  4,  5. 

vi,  i,  2. 

vii,  i,  4. 

viii,  2,  3. 

X,  2. 

i,  2, 

ii,  3>  4,  5>  6. 
iii,  7. 
iv,  2,  7. 
v,  3,  8. 
vi,  7. 
vii,  2,  6. 
viii,  4,  5. 
ix,  i,  3- 


II. — According  to  the   point   at  issue  (i.  e.  the  question  to  be 
decided,  or  the  charge  brought). 

1.  Admission  of  a  tyrant  to  office,  v,  8. 

2.  Adultery,  iv,  7  ;  vi,  6. 

3.  Claims  of  the  blinded,  iii,  i. 

4.  Damage  to  property,  iii,  6  ;  v,  5. 


3.  Affecting  the  political  or  social  status  :      » 


7O  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

5.  Deception  (circumscriptio),  vi,  3. 

6.  Desecration  of  a  tomb,  iv,  4. 

7.  Disinheritance  (abdicated),  i,  i,  4,  6,  8 ;  ii,  i,  2  ;  iii,  2,  3,  4  ; 

iv,  3>  5  ;  v,  2,  4  ;  vi,  i,  2  ;  vii,  i ;  viii,  3,  5  ;  x,  2. 

8.  Force  unlawfully  applied  (vis),  ix,  5. 

9.  Force  in  court  (vis  in  iudicio),  vi,  5  ;  ix,  3. 

10.  Force  and  intimidation  (vis  et  metus),  iv,  8. 

11.  Ingratitude  (ingrati  actio),  ii,  5  ;  ix,  i. 

12.  Injury  to  the  person  (iniuria),  iv,  i  ;  v,  6 ;  x,  i,  6. 

13.  Insanity,  ii,  3,  4  ;  vi,  7 ;  vii,  6  ;  x,  3. 

14.  Laesae  maiestatis,  ix,  2. 

15.  Laesae  reipublicae,  v,  7  ;  x,  4,  5. 

1 6.  Maleficium,  v,  i. 

17.  Maltreatment  (malae  tractionis  actid),  iii,  7  ;  iv,  6  ;  v,  3. 

1 8.  Misbehavior  (de  moribus),  vii,  2. 

19.  Parricide,  iii,  2  ;  v,  4  ;  vii,  3,  5  ;  ix,  4. 

20.  Poisoning,  iii,  7  ;  vi,  4,  6;  vii,  3  ;  ix,  6. 

21.  Priestly  integrity  (moral  and  physical)  i,  2,  3 ;  iv,  2  ;  vi,  8. 

22.  Punishment  of  rape,  i,  5  ;  iii,  5  ;  vii,  8. 

23.  Reward  of  bravery,  iv,  7. 

24.  Sacrilege,  viii,  i,  2. 

25.  Seditious  meeting  (coetus  et  concur -sus),  iii,  8. 

26.  Slaves,  punishment  of,  iii,  9 ;  viii,  3;  (cf.  vii,  6.) 

27.  Suicide,  refusal  of  burial  to,  viii,  4. 

28.  Support  of  parents,  i,  i,  7  ;  vii,  4. 

29.  Treason,  vii,  7  ;  (cf.  x,  6.) 

III. — Side  issues  (i.  e.  with  what  the  action  is  concerned). 

1.  Adultery,  rape  and  incest,  i,  2,  3,  4,  5  ;  ii,  3,  7 ;  iii,  5,  8 ;  iv, 

3 ;  v,  6 ;  vi,  8 ;  vii,  8  ;  viii,  6  ;  ix,  i,  6. 

2.  Exposed  children,  ix,  3  ;  x,  4. 

3.  Mistresses,  ii,  4  ;  ix,  2. 

4.  Pirates,  i,  6,  7  ;  iii,  3;  vii,  i,  4. 

5.  Poor  and  rich,  ii,  i  ;  v,  2,  5  ;  viii,  6  ;  x,  i. 

6.  Step-mother  and  step-children,  ii,  7 ;  iv,  5,  6;  ix,  5,  6. 

7.  Suicide,  v,  i  ;  viii,  i,  3,  4. 

8.  Tyrants  and  tyrannicide,  ii,  5  ;  iii,  6 ;  iv,  7  ;  v,  8  ;  ix,  4. 

9.  Valiant  man  {fortis),  i,  4,  8  ;  iv,  4  ;  viii,  5  ;  x,  2. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA.  /I 

III. — PARALLELS  OF  THE  SUBJECTS  DISCUSSED  IN  THE  CON- 

TROVERSIAE    OF    SENECA,   THE    DECLAMATIONS   OF   THE 
PSEUDO-QUINTILIAN,   AND   CALPURNIUS   FLACCUS. 

i.  Subjects  identical. 

Seneca,  ii,  3 — Quintilian,  349. 

A  ravisher  must  perish  unless  within  thirty  days  he  appeases  his 
own  father  and  the  father  of  the  ravished. 

A  ravisher  appeased  the  father  of  the  ravished  but  not  his  own. 
He  charges  him  with  insanity.318 

Seneca,  ii,  4 — Calpurnius  Flaccus,  30. 

A  man  disinherited  his  son ;  the  latter  betook  himself  to  a 
courtesan  and  begot  a  son  by  her.  Being  ill  he  sent  for  his  father; 
when  he  had  come  he  commended  his  son  to  him  and  died.  After 
his  death  his  father  adopted  the  child  ;  he  is  charged  with  insanity 
by  his  other  son.819 

Seneca,  iii,  5— Calpurnius  Flaccus,  33. 

A  ravished  woman  may  require  either  the  death  of  the  ravisher, 
or  that  he  shall  marry  her  without  dowry.320 

A  ravisher  demands  that  the  ravished  one  be  produced  (so  that 
she  may  make  her  choice).  The  father  does  not  permit.821 

Seneca,  iii,  9 — Quintilian,  380. 

A  master  being  ill  asked  his  slave  to  give  him  poison,  the  latter 
refused.  The  master  provided  by  his  will  that  the  slave  should 
be  crucified  by  the  heirs.  The  slave  appeals  to  the  tribunes.322 

Seneca,  iv,  4 — Quintilian,  369. 

Action  for  desecration  of  a  tomb.  During  a  war  in  a  certain 
state  a  valiant  man,  who  had  lost  his  arms  in  battle,  took  the 
arms  from  the  tomb  of  another  valiant  man.  After  fighting 
bravely  he  restored  the  arms.  He  received  the  reward  (of 
bravery)  but  was  accused  of  desecration  of  a  tomb.323 

318  Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  ix,  2,  90. 

319  The  slight  variations  in  the  theme  as  given  by  Calpurnius  Flaccus  do 
not  affect  the  point  at  issue.     These  are  that  the  father  disinherited  the  son 
on  account  of  his  love  affair,  and  that  he  only  wished  to  adopt  the  child. 

3'°  Cf.  Seneca,  i,  5  ;  vii,  8  ;  viii,  6. 

321  In  Calpurnius  Flaccus  the  father  forcibly  restrains  the  woman. 

322  Quintilian  adds  that  the  master  had  promised  the  slave  his  liberty. 

323  In  Quintilian  the  substance  of  the  theme  is  given  in  a  shorter  form. 


72  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

Seneca,  vi,  5 — Quintilian,  386. 

He  who  uses  violence  in  court  should  suffer  capital  punish- 
ment. 

Iphicrates  having  been  sent  against  the  king  of  the  Thracians 
and  conquered  twice  in  battle,  concluded  a  treaty  with  him  and 
married  his  daughter.  When  he  had  returned  to  Athens  and 
was  brought  before  a  court,  some  Thracians  were  seen  about 
armed  with  knives,  and  the  defendant  himself  drew  a  sword. 
When  the  judges  were  called  upon  to  pronounce  judgment 
they  openly  acquitted  him.  He  is  accused  of  using  violence  in 
court.324 

Seneca,  vi,  6 — Quintilian,  354 — Calpurnius  Flaccus,  39. 
Action  for  poisoning. 

A  man  who  had  a  wife  and  by  her  a  marriageable  daughter? 
informed  his  wife  to  whom  he  intended  to  give  the  daughter  in 
marriage.  The  wife  said  :  "  She  shall  die  sooner  than  marry  that 
man."  The  daughter  died  before  the  wedding  day  with  suspicious 
signs  of  cruel  treatment  and  poisoning.  The  father  put  a  maid- 
servant to  the  torture :  she  said  that  she  knew  nothing  about 
poison  but  she  did  know  about  the  adultery  of  her  mistress  with 
that  man  to  whom  he  was  intending  to  give  his  daughter  in  mar- 
riage. The  father  accused  his  wife  of  poisoning  and  adultery.325 

Seneca,  vii,  3 — Quintilian,  17. 

A  son  who  had  been  three  times  disinherited  and  forgiven 
was  surprised  by  his  father  in  a  retired  part  of  the  house  pre- 
paring a  potion.  When  asked  what  it  was  he  said  it  was  poison, 
and  that  he  wished  to  die ;  he  poured  it  out.  He  is  accused  of 
parricide.326 

324  Quintilian  limits  himself  to  the  brief  statement  that  Iphicrates  came 
into  court  girded  with  a  sword  and  brought   with   him  Cotys  king  of  the 
Thracians. 

325  In  Quintilian  the  episode  of  the  torture  and  confession  of  the  maid-ser- 
vent  is  wanting  ;  suspicion  against  the  wife  arises  from  her  saying  :  "  She 
shall  die  before  she  marries,"  and  from  the  fact  that  the  husband  had  seen 
her  secretly  conversing  with  the  handsome  young  man  to  whom  he  betrothes 
his  daughter  ;  cf.  also  Hermogenes,  irepl  TUV  ardceuv,  Spengel,  Rhet.  Grace. 

">  143- 

326  In  Quintilian  the  dramatic  touch  is  added  that  the  father  ordered  the 
son  to  drink  the  mixture. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  73 

Seneca,  vii,  8 — Quintilian,  309. 

A  ravished  woman  may  request  either  the  death  of  the  ravisher, 
or  that  he  shall  marry  her  without  dowry.327 

A  woman  who  had  been  ravished  when  produced  in  court  chose 
marriage.  The  young  man  who  was  defendant  denied  that  he 
was  the  ravisher.  He  was  condemned,  and  the  woman  then  chose 
his  death  although  he  was  then  willing  to  marry  her.  The  man 
protests.328 

Seneca,  viii,  i — Calpurnius  Flaccus,  41. 

A  magistrate  may  inflict  punishment  upon  one  who  has  con- 
fessed. 

A  woman  who  had  lost  her  husband  and  two  sons  hanged  her- 
self. Her  third  son  cut  the  rope.  She,  when  a  sacrilege  had 
been  committed  and  the  perpetrator  was  being  sought  for,  told 
the  magistrate  that  she  was  the  guilty  party.  The  magistrate 
wishes  to  inflict  punishment  on  her  on  the  ground  of  her  confes- 
sion. The  son  objects.329 

Seneca,  ix,  6 — Quintilian,  381 — Calpurnius  Flaccus,  12. 

A  poisoner  may  be  tortured  until  she  discloses  her  accomplices. 

A  man  after  the  death  of  his  wife,  by  whom  he  had  a  son,  mar- 
ried another  wife  and  by  her  had  a  daughter.  The  young  man 
died,  and  the  husband  accused  the  step-mother  of  poisoning  him. 
Having  been  condemned,  she  said  under  torture  that  her  daughter 
was  her  accomplice.  The  daughter  is  demanded  for  punishment. 
The  father  defends  her.330 

2.     Subjects  more  or  less  cognate. 

Seneca,  i,  4 — Quintilian,  330. 

He  who  surprises  an  adulterer  with  an  adulteress  and  kills  them 
shall  be  without  guilt. 

It  shall  be  permissible  even  for  a  son  to  punish  adultery  in  his 
mother. 

327  Cf.  Seneca,  i,  5  ;  iii,  5  ;  vii,  8  ;  viii,  6. 

328  In  Quintilian  it  is  stated  that  she  wished  freedom  of  choice  after  the 
conviction. 

329  In  Calpurnius  Flaccus  she  has  lost  her  husband  and  three  sons  out  of 
four. 

330  In  Quintilian  this    theme  is    given  briefly  with  the  addition  that  the 
son  died  "  ambiguis  signis."     Calpurnius  Flaccus  uses  the  same  phrase. 


74  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

A  valiant  man  who  had  lost  his  hands  in  war  surprised  an 
adulterer  with  his  wife  by  whom  he  had  a  son  now  a  young  man. 
He  ordered  his  son  to  kill  but  he  did  not.  The  adulterer  escaped, 
and  he  disinherited  his  son.331 

In  Quintilian  the  filial  piety  of  the  son  towards  his  mother,  at 
the  expense  of  his  injured  father,  is  in  a  different  form.  A  man 
repudiated  his  wife  on  a  charge  of  adultery  ;  his  son  by  her  came 
to  him  and  told  him  that  he  was  in  love  with  a  courtesan.  His 
father  gave  him  money,  and  with  it  he  supported  his  mother,  who 
was  in  want,  without  the  knowledge  of  his  father.  When  his 
father  found  it  out  he  disinherited  his  son. 

Seneca,  i,  5 — Quintilian,  270 — Calpurnius  Flaccus,  49. 

A  ravished  woman  may  require  either  the  death  of  the  ravisher, 
or  that  he  shall  marry  her  without  a  dowry.332 

A  man  ravished  two  women  the  same  night ;  one  requires  his 
death,  the  other  marriage. 

In  Quintilian  the  act  was  perpetrated  on  one  of  twin  sisters. 
The  victim  hanged  herself,  but  the  father  produced  the  other  in 
court  and  instructed  her  to  require  the  death  of  the  ravisher.  The 
young  man,  supposing  that  this  was  the  woman  whom  he  had 
ravished,  was  condemned.  When  the  deceit  was  found  out  the 
father  was  accused  of-murder. 

In  Calpurnius  Flaccus  the  case  is  the  same  as  in  Seneca,  but 
the  point  at  issue  is  different.  The  court  decided  for  the  more 
humane  demand;  after  the  marriage  the  other  woman  bore  a 
child  (by  the  ravisher).  The  latter  exposed  it,  but  the  husband 
of  this  other  woman  took  it  up  and  began  to  rear  it;  whereupon 
he  is  accused  by  his  wife  of  malae  tractationis. 

Seneca,  i,  6 — Quintilian,  376. 

A  man  captured  by  pirates  wrote  to  his  father  in  regard  to  a 
ransom,  but  was  not  ransomed.  The  daughter  of  the  pirate-chief 
compelled  the  man  to  swear  that  he  would  marry  her  if  he  were 
set  free ;  he  swore  to  do  so.  She  left  her  father  and  followed  the 
young  man.  After  returning  to  his  father  he  married  her.  An 
orphan  appears  on  the  scene  whom  the  young  man's  father  com- 

331  From  the  context  it  would  seem  that  the  father's  command  to  the  son 
was  to  kill  both  the  guilty  parties. 

332  Cf.  Seneca,  iii,  8  ;  vii,  8 ;  viii,  6. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA.  75 

rnands  him  to  marry  after  dismissing  the  daughter  of  the  pirate- 
chief.     Upon  his  refusal  he  is  disinherited. 

In  Quintilian  it  is  the  daughter  of  a  benefactor  who  is  in  the 
case.  A  man  when  dying  offers  to  reveal  to  a  young  man,  whom 
he  has  brought  up  as  his  own  son,  his  true  parentage  if  he  will 
take  an  oath  that  he  will  marry  the  daughter  whom  the  dying  man 
is  leaving.  The  young  man  swore  to  do  so.  Being  received  by 
his  real  father  after  the  death  of  his  benefactor,  upon  his  refusal 
to  marry  a  rich  orphan,  he  is  disinherited. 

Seneca,  i,  7 — Quintilian,  5. 

Let  children  care  for  their  parents  or  suffer  punishment. 

A  man  killed  one  brother  who  was  a  tyrant,  and  another  whom 
he  had  caught  in  adultery,  although  his  father  entreated  him  not 
to  do  so.  Being  captured  by  pirates  he  wrote  to  his  father  in 
regard  to  a  ransom.  The  father  wrote  to  the  pirates  offering  them 
a  double  sum  if  they  would  cut  off  his  son's  hands.  The  pirates 
released  the  son  who,  afterward,  when  his  father  was  in  want,  did 
not  support  him. 

In  Quintilian  the  same  point  is  at  issue,  but  the  circumstances 
are  different.  A  man  had  two  sons,  one  respectable,  the  other 
dissipated.  Both  went  abroad  and  were  captured  by  pirates, 
whereupon  the  profligate  became  ill.  Both  wrote  home  in  regard 
to  a  ransom.  The  father  turned  all  his  property  into  money  and 
came  to  them.  The  pirates  told  him  that  he  brought  only  enough 
to  redeem  one,  and  that  he  might  choose  whichever  he  wished. 
He  ransomed  the  one  who  was  ill,  who  died  while  on  his  way 
home.  The  other  made  his  escape  and  when  his  father  demanded 
support,  refused. 

Seneca,  ii,  2 — Quintilian,  357. 

A  husband  and  wife  took  a  mutual  oath  that  if  one  died  the 
other  would  not  survive.  The  husband  went  abroad  and  sent  a 
messenger  to  inform  his  wife  that  he  was  dead.  Thereupon  she 
threw  herself  from  a  height,  but  survived.  She  is  commanded  by 
her  father  to  leave  her  husband,  and  on  her  refusal  is  disinherited. 

In  Quintilian  it  is  a  wife  who  complains  about  her  husband  to 
her  father  and  is  commanded  by  the  latter  to  keep  the  peace. 
But  afterward  when  her  husband  had  been  blinded  on  account  of 
adultery  and  she  refused  to  desert  him,  she  is  disinherited. 


76  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

Seneca,  ii,  5 — Quintilian,  251. 

A  wife,  who  was  tortured  by  a  tyrant  to  force  her  to  declare 
whether  she  knew  anything  of  a  plot  formed  by  her  husband  for 
the  murder  of  the  tyrant,  persevered  in  denying.  Afterward  her 
husband  killed  the  tyrant.  As  she  bore  no  children  for  five  years 
her  husband  divorced  her  under  the  pretext  of  barrenness.  An 
action  is  brought  for  ingratitude. 

In  Quintilian  it  is  a  case  oiiniusti  repudii,  the  union  having  taken 
place  after  a  rape,  when  the  woman  had  her  choice  between  the 
death  of  the  ravisher  and  marriage,  which  marriage  the  husband 
now  tries  to  dissolve  on  the  charge  of  barrenness. 

Seneca,  ii,  7 — Quintilian,  325  and  363. 

A  man  who  had  a  beautiful  wife  went  abroad.  A  merchant 
from  foreign  parts  settled  in  the  neighborhood,  and  three  times 
made  proposals  to  the  woman,  offering  her  gifts.  She,  however, 
refused.  The  merchant  died,  and  by  his  will  made  the  beautiful 
woman  heir  of  all  his  property,  adding  the  eulogy :  "  I  found  her 
chaste."  She  entered  upon  the  inheritance.  Her  husband  returned 
and  accused  her  of  adultery  on  suspicion. 

In  Quintilian  325  a  rich  man  and  a  poor  man  are  neighbors. 
There  was  a  rumor  that  the  poor  man's  pretty  wife  was  unduly 
intimate  with  the  rich  man,  with  the  connivance  of  her  husband. 
The  latter  was  accused  of  procuring  (lenocinii),  but  was  acquitted. 
The  rich  man  died  leaving  the  poor  man  heir  to  all  his  property, 
adding :  "  I  ask  you  to  restore  this  legacy  to  that  person  of  whom 
I  made  a  request."  The  poor  man's  wife  demands  the  legacy  as 
"  fidei  commissam." 

In  Quintilian  363  the  poor  man  with  the  beautiful  wife  is 
solicited  three  times,  with  an  offer  of  gifts  by  the  foreign  merchant, 
that  he  may  let  him  his  wife  for  an  immoral  purpose.  The  hus- 
band sends  a  wardrobe-maid  in  the  garb  of  a  matron.  An  action 
is  brought  for  mala  tractatio. 

Seneca,  vi,  7 — Quintilian,  291 — Calpurnius  Flaccus,  46. 

There  may  be  an  action  for  insanity. 

A  man  who  had  two  sons  married  again.  When  one  of  the 
young  men  fell  ill,  and  was  at  the  point  of  death,  the  physicians 
declared  that  the  trouble  was  a  mental  one.  The  father  forced 
the  son  at  the  sword's  point  to  disclose  the  cause.  He  said  that 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  77 

he  was  in  love  with  his  step-mother.  The  father  gave  up  his 
wife  to  him,  and  was  thereupon  charged  by  his  other  son  with 
insanity. 

In  Quintilian  and  Calpurnius  Flaccus  it  is  one  of  the  sons  who, 
at  the  instance  of  his  father,  gives  up  his  wife  to  his  lovesick 
brother.  The  latter  afterwards  finds  his  wife  in  adultery  with  her 
former  husband  and  kills  them.  For  this  he  is  disinherited  by 
his  father.  In  Calpurnius  Flaccus  it  is  distinctly  stated  that  the 
second  husband  kills  both;  in  Quintilian  only  the  woman  is 
mentioned  as  being  killed. 

Seneca,  vii,  3 — Quintilian,  377. 

A  son  who  had  been  three  times  disinherited  and  forgiven  was 
surprised  by  his  father  in  a  retired  part  of  the  house  preparing  a 
potion.  When  asked  what  it  was  he  said  it  was  poison  and  that 
he  wished  to  die ;  he  poured  it  out.  He  is  accused  of  par- 
ricide.333 

In  Quintilian  377  the  son  is  driven  to  this  desperate  deed 
because  his  father  was  about  to  send  him  for  the  third  time  to 
military  service. 

Seneca  vii,  4 — Quintilian  6  and  16. 

Let  children  care  for  their  parents  or  suffer  punishment. 

A  man  who  had  a  wife  and  a  son  by  her  went  abroad ;  being 
captured  by  pirates  he  wrote  to  his  wife  and  son  in  regard  to  a 
ransom.  The  wife  lost  her  eyesight  through  weeping1.  She 
demanded  support  of  her  son  as  he  was  setting  out  to  ransom  his 
father.  When  he  refuses  to  remain  she  wishes  him  to  be  sustained 
by  force. 

In  Quintilian  6  the  son  set  out  to  free  his  father  by  becoming 
captive  in  his  place  (yicariis  manibus).  He  died  in  captivity  and 
his  corpse  having  been  thrown  into  the  sea  was  cast  up  on  the 
shore  of  his  native  land.  The  father  wishes  to  give  it  burial,  the 
mother  forbids. 

In  Quintilian  16  the  case  concerns  two  friends  of  whom  one  has 
a  mother,  who,  while  travelling  abroad,  fell  into  the  hands  of  a 
tyrant.  The  mother  lost  her  eyesight  through  weeping.  The 
tyrant  offered  to  allow  the  son  to  go  and  see  his  mother  on  condi- 
tion that  if  he  did  not  return  by  a  specified  day  the  other  young 

333  Identical  with  Quintilian  17. 


78  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

man  should  suffer  punishment.  The  son  having  bound  himself 
by  oath  to  return  came  to  his  own  country.  His  mother  prevents 
him  from  returning  by  the  law  which  forbids  children  to  desert 
their  parents  in  distress. 

Seneca,  vii,  5 — Quintilian,  i  and  2. 

A  man  after  the  death  of  his  wife,  by  whom  he  had  a  son, 
married  again  and  had  a  son  of  this  marriage  also.  There  was  in 
the  house  a  handsome  steward.  When  there  were  frequent 
quarrels  between  the  step-mother  and  the  step-son,  the  latter  was 
ordered  by  his  father  to  move.  He  hired  the  dwelling  next  door. 
Rumor  charged  the  steward  and  the  step-mother  with  adultery. 
Finally  the  father  of  the  family  was  found  murdered  in  his  bed- 
chamber, the  wife  wounded,  and  the  partition  wall  between  the 
houses  of  the  father  and  the  son  broken  through.  The  relations 
determined  to  ask  the  five-year  old  son,  who  slept  with  his  father 
and  mother,  whom  he  recognized  as  the  murderer.  He  pointed 
at  the  steward.  The  son  accuses  the  steward  of  murder,  the 
steward  the  son  of  parricide. 

In  Quintilian  i  there  is  no  steward  in  the  case ;  the  dramatis 
personae  are  a  father,  his  second  wife  and  a  blind  son  by  his  first 
wife.  The  father  is  found  murdered  in  bed  beside  his  wife  with 
the  son's  sword  sticking  in  the  wound.  On  the  wall  separating 
the  father's  room  from  that  of  the  son  are  the  bloody  marks  of  a 
hand.  Step-son  and  step-mother  accuse  each  other. 

In  Quintilian  2  there  are  also  a  blind  son  and  a  step-mother  but 
the  relations  are  more  complicated.  The  son  had  formerly 
rescued  his  father  from  a  burning  house,  and  had  lost  his  eyesight 
while  trying  vainly  to  rescue  his  mother.  A  time  came  when  the 
step-mother  asserted  to  the  father  that  his  son  had  prepared 
poison  for  him  and  had  offered  her  half  of  the  property  if  she 
would  administer  the  poison.  The  son  being  questioned  denied 
this,  but  when  his  father  searched  he  found  the  poison  about  his 
person.  When  asked  for  whom  he  had  prepared  it  the  son  was 
silent.  The  father  altered  his  will  making  the  step-mother  his 
heir.  On  the  same  night  a  noise  was  heard  in  the  house,  and 
when  the  household  entered  the  chamber  of  their  master  they 
found  him  murdered  and  the  step-mother  apparently  asleep  beside 
the  corpse,  while  the  blind  son  was  standing  at  the  door  of  his 
chamber,  his  bloody  sword  being  under  his  pillow.  Step-son  and 
step-mother  accuse  each  other. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  79 

Seneca,  viii,  3 — Calpurnius  Flaccus,  47. 

The  father  of  two  sons  gave  a  wife  to  one.  The  latter  went 
abroad,  and  rumor  began  to  allege  improper  relations  between 
the  father-in-law  and  the  daughter-in-law.  When  the  husband 
returned  he  subjected  his  wife's  maid  to  the  torture  so  severely 
that  she  died  under  it ;  whereupon  in  his  uncertainty  as  to  what 
he  wished  to  know  he  hanged  himself.  The  father  commanded 
the  other  son  to  marry  the  widow,  and  upon  his  refusal  disin- 
herited him. 

In  Calpurnius  Flaccus  the  husband  who  suspected  his  father 
of  improper  relations  with  his  wife  surprised  the  latter  in  adultery 
with  a  man  whose  features  were  concealed.  He  killed  only  his 
wife,  and  is  charged  with  murder.  He  demands  that  his  father 
shall  defend  him,  and  his  father  objects. 

Seneca,  viii,  6 — Quintilian,  257. 

A  ravished  woman  may  require  either  the  death  of  the  ravisher, 
or  that  he  shall  marry  her  without  dowry.334 

A  rich  man  three  times  addressed  a  poor  man  in  regard  to 
giving  him  his  daughter  in  marriage,  and  three  times  the  poor 
man  refused.  Having  started  on  a  voyage  with  his  daughter  the 
poor  man  was  shipwrecked  upon  the  estate  of  the  rich  man  who 
again  appealed  to  him  in  regard  to  marriage  with  his  daughter. 
The  poor  man  wept  but  kept  silent.  Nevertheless  the  rich  man 
consummated  the  nuptials.  Upon  their  return  to  the  city  the 
poor  man  wishes  to  bring  his  daughter  before  the  court  (that  she 
may  demand  the  death  of  the  rich  man).  The  rich  man  protests. 

In  Quintilian  a  man  who  had  a  son  and  a  rich  enemy  was  cap- 
tured by  pirates.  He  wrote  to  his  son  in  regard  to  a  ransom. 
The  son  had  no  money  but  when  the  rich  man  offered  him  his 
daughter  in  marriage  he  accepted  her  and  thus  obtained  means  to 
ransom  his  father.  The  latter  on  his  return  commands  his  son  to 
put  away  his  wife,  and  upon  refusal  disinherits  him. 

Seneca,  ix,  4 — Quintilian,  362. 

Whosoever  strikes  his  father  let  his  hands  be  cut  off. 

A  tyrant  who  held  captive  a  father  and  his  two  sons  com- 
manded the  young  men  to  strike  their  father.  One  of  them  threw 
himself  headlong  to  death,  the  other  obeyed  and  was  afterward 

334  Cf.  Seneca,  i,  5  ;  iii,  5  ;  vii,  8. 


8O  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

received  into  the  tyrant's  favor.  The  young  man  killed  the  tyrant, 
and  received  a  reward.  A  demand  is  made  that  his  hands  be  cut 
off.  His  father  defends  him. 

In  Qaintilian  the  crime  is  much  aggravated  by  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  compulsion  :  two  youths  taking  an  oath  each  to  strike 
the  other's  father;  on  the  other  hand  there  is  no  actual  striking  of 
one's  own  father.  A  demand  is  made  that  their  hands  be  cut  off; 
their  fathers  defend  them. 

Seneca,  ix,  5— Calpurnius  Flaccus,  34. 

Let  there  be  an  action  on  a  charge  of  force  unlawfully  applied. 

A  man,  having  a  wife,  lost  two  sons  by  a  former  wife  with  sus- 
picious signs  of  cruel  treatment  and  poisoning.  The  third  son 
was  abducted  by  his  maternal  grandfather  who  had  not  been 
admitted  to  see  the  others  when  ill.  When  the  father  sought  to 
find  his  son  by  means  of  a  public  crier  the  grandfather  acknowl- 
edged that  the  son  was  with  him,  and  was  charged  with  force 
unlawfully  applied. 

In  Calpurnius  Flaccus  a  repudiated  wife,  who  had  a  son,  after 
repeated  attempts  without  success  to  obtain  a  reconciliation  with 
her  husband,  uttered  a  threat  that  she  would  avenge  herself.  The 
husband  gave  the  boy  a  step-mother,  and  the  boy  died  with  suspi- 
cious signs  of  cruel  treatment  and  poisoning.  The  two  women 
accuse  each  other. 

The  circumstances  in  the  two  declamations  are  much  the  same, 
but  the  judicial  point  at  issue  is  in  one  case  vis,  in  the  other  homi- 
cide.335 

Seneca,  x,  2 — Quintilian,  258. 

Let  a  valiant  man  choose  what  reward  he  will ;  if  there  be  more 
than  one  claimant  let  the  matter  be  settled  by  a  judicial  decision. 

A  father  and  son  have  both  fought  valiantly.  The  father  asks 
the  son  to  give  up  to  him  the  reward  of  bravery.  The  son 
refuses ;  the  matter  is  carried  into  court  and  the  son  wins.  There- 
upon he  asks  as  a  reward  that  statues  be  erected  to  his  father 
who,  however,  disinherits  him. 

In  Quintilian  after  the  son  has  refused  to  give  up  the  reward  to 
his  father  the  latter  yields  and  disinherits  him. 

J35  Cf.  also  Seneca,  vi,  6;  Quintilian,  354;  Calpurnius  Flaccus,  39. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 


8l 


Synoptic  table  of  the  parallels  of  the  subjects  of  the  Controversiae 

of  Seneca,  the  Declamations  of  the  pseudo-  Quintilian 

and  Calpurnius  Flaccus 

i.  Subjects  identical. 


Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  ix,  2,  90. 


Pseudo- 

Calpurnius 

Seneca. 

Quintilian. 

Flaccus. 

ii,  3 

349 

| 

ii,  4 

30 

iii,  5 

33 

iii,  9 

380 

iv,  4 

369 

vi,  5 

386 

vi,  6 

354 

39 

vii,  3 
vii,  8 
viii,  i 
ix,  6 


17 
309 

381 


Cf.  Hermogenes,  n 

(Spengel,  Rhet.  Grace,  ii.  143.) 


41 
12 


2.   Subjects  more  or  less  cognate. 


Pseudo-         Calpurnius 

Seneca. 

Quintilian. 

Flaccus. 

i»  4 

330 

i>  5 

270 

49 

1,6 

376 

i>7 

5 

ii,  2 

357 

ii,  5 

251 

ii,  7 

325  and  363 

vi,  7 

291 

46 

vii,  3 

377 

vii,  4 

6  and  16 

vii,  5 

i  and  2 

viii,  3 

47 

viii,  6 

257 

ix,  4 

362 

ix,  5 

34- 

X,  2 

258 

82  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

IV.— THE  LEGAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE  CONTROVERSIAE  OF 
SENECA. 

Contr.  i,  3. 

Law :  Let  the  incestuous  priestess  be  hurled  from  a  rock. 

A  priestess  accused  of  incest  before  she  was  hurled  from  the 
rock  invoked  Vesta.  She  remained  alive,  and  was  demanded 
again  for  a  repetition  of  the  penalty.336 

The  Vestals  vowed  chastity  for  thirty  years,  and  severe  penal- 
ties were  appointed  for  the  violation  of  this  vow,  as  it  was  believed 
to  provoke  the  wrath  of  the  gods  upon  the  country.  The  ponti- 
fices — later  the  emperors — sat  in  judgment  on  the  offending 
Vestals.  In  the  earliest  times  they  were  scourged  to  death,  but 
from  the  time  of  Tarquinius  Priscus337  they  were  buried  alive, 
although  according  to  Orosius338  in  273  B.  C.  a  Vestal  was 
hanged.  Those  convicted  were  carried  on  a  bier  in  silence 
through  the  streets  and,  after  being  scourged,339  were  immured 
alive  with  some  food  and  a  candle  in  a  small  subterranean  vault  in 
the  Campus  Sceleratus  at  the  Colline  gate340 

The  male  accomplice  was  scourged  to  death  in  the  market 
place.346  According  to  Dio  Cassius342  he  was  after  the  scourging 

336  That  this  is  a  reference  to  a  fictitious  law  of  the  schools  was  stated 
above,  p.  63. 

337  Cf.  Dion.  Hal.,  Antiq.  Rom.  i,  78. 

338  iv,  5,  9.  339  Cf.  Dion.  Hal.,  Antiq.  Rom.  ix,  40. 

340  Cf.  ibid,  ii,  67  ;  viii,  89  ;  Livy,  viii,  15,  7  sq.:  "  Eo  anno  Minucia  Vestalis 
suspecta  primo  propter  mundiorem  iusto  cultum,  insimulata  deinde  apud 
pontifices  ab  indice  servo  cum  decreto  eorum  iussa  esset  sacris  abstinere 
familiamque  itrpotestate  habere,  facto  iudicio  viva  sub  terram  ad  portam 
Collinam  dextra  viam  stratam  defossa  Scelerato  Campo  ;  credo  incesto  id 
ei  loco  nomen  factum";  ibid,  xxii,  57,  2  :    "  Quae  Vestales  eo  anno  Epimia 
atque  Floronia,  stupri  conpertae,  et  altera  sub  terra,  uti  mos  est,  ad  portam 
Collinam  necata  f  uerat,  altera  sibimet  ipsa  mortem  consciverat  ";  ibid.  Epit. 
xiv:"  Sextilia,  virgoVestalis,damnataincesti,viva  defossa  est"  (but the  pas- 
sage contains  nothing  about  the  punishment  of  the  male  accomplice  to  which 
Rein  refers).  Servius  ad  Verg.,  Aen.  xi,  206  ;  Plutarch,  Num.  10  ;  Fab.  Max. 
18  ;   Juvenal,  Sat.  iv,  8  sq.     "  Incestus,  cum  quo  nuper  vittata  iacebat  san- 
guine   adhuc  vivo   terram   subitura    sacerdos";    Pliny,  Epist.  iv,  n  ;  St. 
Augustine,  De  Civitate  Dei\\\,  5;  Zonaeus,  viii,  p.  326,  ed.  Dind. 

341  Cf.  Dion.  Hal.,  Antiq.  Rom.  viii,  89;   ix,  40;    Livy,  xxii,  57,  3:    "L. 
Cantilius  scriba  pontificis,  quos  nunc  minores  pontifices  adpellant,  qui  cum 
Floronia  stuprum  fecerat,  a  pontifice  maximo  eo  usque  virgis  in  comitio 
caesus  erat,  ut  inter  verbera  exspiraret." 

342  Ixxix,  9. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA.  83 

strangled  in  prison.  But  this  was  not  the  original  punishment. 
The  punishment  of  the  criminals  was  followed  by  great  expiatory 
sacrifices  to  avert  diseases  and  other  visitations  of  the  gods.343 

This  penalty  remained  in  force  as  long  as  the  institution  of  the 
Vestals  was  in  existence,  even  under  the  Christian  emperors.344 

Contr.  i,  4. 

Law  :  Let  the  man  who  surprises  a  man  and  woman  in  adultery 
be  without  blame  if  he  kills  both. 

Law  :  Let  it  be  lawful  even  for  a  son  to  punish  adultery  in  his 
mother. 

A  valiant  man  who  had  lost  both  hands  in  war,  caught  his  wife 
and  her  paramour  inflagrante  and  ordered  his  son  to  kill  them. 
The  young  man  refused  and  the  adulterer  escaped,  thereupon  the 
son  is  disinherited.345 

In  the  earliest  times  the  husband  who  apprehended  his  wife  in 
flagrante  was  allowed  to  kill  her340  and  to  avenge  himself  on  the 
adulterer  according  to  his  pleasure.  The  same  right  was  accorded 
to  the  wife's  father.  They  were,  however,  obliged  to  kill  both 
parties  or  neither.347  The  Lex  Julia  of  Augustus  allowed  only 
the  father  to  kill  both  or  neither  under  certain  conditions,  while 
the  husband  could  not  kill  his  wife  under  any  condition,  and  the 
adulterer  only  when  he  waspersona  in/amis,  inhonesta, 


343  Dion  Hal.,    Antiq.  Rom.  viii,  89  ;  ix,  40;  Plutarch,  Quaest.  Rom.  83; 
Livy,  xxii,  57,  4  sq.:   "  Hoc  nefas  cum  inter  tot,  ut  fit,  clades  in  prodigium 
versum  esset,  decemviri  libros  adire  iussi  sunt,  et  O.  Fabius  Pictor  Delphos 
ad  oraculum  missus   est   sciscitatum,  quibus   precibus   suppliciisque    deos 
possent  placare,  et  quaenam  futura  finis  tantis  cladibus  foret.     Interim   ex 
fatalibus  libris  sacrificia  aliquot  extraordinaria  facta." 

344  Cf.  Eusebuis,  Chron.  a.  2107.  —  Cf.  on  this  subject  Rein,  Criminalrecht^ 
pp.  876-8.  Rein,  ibid.,  p.  877,  foot  note,  quotes  Dion.  Hal.,  Antiq.  Rom.  ii,  69; 
Val.  Max.  viii,  i,  5;  St.  August.,  De  Civitatc  Dei  x,  16  ;  Pliny,  Nat.  Hist. 
xxviii,  2,  for  the  story  that  the  Vestal  Fuccia  was  acquitted  of  the  charge 
through  a  miracle,  and  her  accuser  disappeared  in  an  inexplicable  way.   For 
another  such  case  Rein  refers  to  Herod,  i,  10. 

345  For  the  possible  mythological  source  of  and  the  parallels  to  this  theme 
compare  above,  p.  64. 

346  Cf.  Aul.  Gell.  x,  23;  Seneca,  De  ira  i,  end. 

347  Cf.  Quintilian,  Inst.  Orat.  v,  10,  104  ;  vii,  i,  6  sq.  ;   Decl.  277.  279.  284. 
29:-  335'  347-  379  >  Calpurnius  Flaccus,  46;    Seneca,  Contr.  ix,  i. 

348  Cf.  Paullus,  ii,  26,  i  sq.  ;    Rein,  Criminalr.,  pp.  835-44. 


84  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

Contr.  i,  5. 

Law :  A  ravished  woman  may  choose  either  the  death  of  the 
ravisher  or  marriage  without  a  dowry. 

A  man  ravished  two  maidens  in  the  same  night :  one  demanded 
his  death,  the  other  marriage.3*9 

In  the  Lex  Julia  de  vi  rape  is  considered  as  vis,  and  was  at  first 
punished  with  aquae  et  ignis  interdictio>  afterward  with  exile. 
Later  capital  punishment  was  inflicted,  but  this  was  unusual.350 

Contr.  iii,  2. 
Parricida  aequis  sententiis  absolutus. 

A  certain  man  accused  his  son  of  an  attempt  at  parricide. 
When  the  judges  were  equally  divided  in  opinion,  the  young  man 
was  acquitted.  Whereupon  his  father  disinherited  him. 

In  ancient  times  a  special  commission  (guaestores)  was  ap- 
pointed, at  first  by  the  kings,  in  the  republican  epoch  by  the 
people,  to  judge  cases  of  parricide.361  The  penalty  was  drowning 
in  a  sack.352  The  Lex  Cornelia  de  sicariis  mentions  parricide. 
The  Lex  Pompeia  treats  especially  de  parricidis ;  it  defines  as 
parricide  "  Qui  patrem,  matrem,  avum,  aviam,  fratrem,  sororem, 
patronum,  patronam  occiderit."368 

The  punishment  of  the  culeus*™  was  retained  for  the  murder  of 
parents  and  grandparents  ;  for  the  murder  of  other  relations  aquae 
et  ignis  interdictio  was  decreed.  The  Lex  Pompeia  threatened 
attempted  parricide  (e.  g.  the  preparation  of  poison)  in  the  same 
manner  as  if  it  were  accomplished.  The  crime  must  be  absolute 
and  manifest.  The  Lex  Pompeia  remained  in  force  under  the 
emperors.  For  the  culeus  there  was  sometimes  substituted  burn- 
ing, or  throwing  to  wild  beasts.355 

349 Cf.  above,  p.  64. 

350  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,   pp.  868  sq. 

351  Cf.  Pomp.,  2,  §  32  ;    D.  de  orig.  iur.  i.  2. 

352  Cf.  Ad  Heren.  i,  13;  Livy,  Epit.  Ixviii ;  Orosius,  v,  16. 

353  Cf.  Paullus,  v,  25. 

354Cf.  Modestinus,  1.  q.  pr.  D.  h.  t. :  "  Poena  parr,  more  maiorum  haec 
instituti  est,  ut  parricida  virgis  sanguineis  (*.  e.  red)  verberatus,  deinde 
culeo  (of  leather,  cf.  Juvenal,  xiii,  155)  insuatur  cum  cane,  gallo,  gallina  et 
vipera  et  simia,  deinde  in  mare  prof undum  culeus  iactetur";  Cicero,  Rose. 
Amtr.  25.26,  69-72;  Quint.,  Decl.  299;  Ad  Heren.  i,  13;  Cicero,  De 
invent,  ii,  50,  149. 

365  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  pp.  449-63. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

~rr^\ 

Contr.  in,  8.  |  UNIVERSITY 

Olynthius  pater  reus  concursus. 

Law:  Let  it  be  a  capital  offence  to  make  a  meeting  and  assembly. 

After  the  conquest  of  Olynthus  an  aged  Olynthian  came  to 
Athens  with  his  youthful  son.  The  Athenians  decreed  citizen- 
ship to  all  the  Olynthians.  Having  been  invited  to  dinner  by  a 
voluptuous  young  man  the  old  man  came  with  his  son.  When 
a  suggestion  was  made  of  debauching  the  son,  the  father  fled 
while  the  young  man  was  forcibly  retained.  The  father  began  to 
lament  before  the  house  ;  the  house  was  burned  ;  ten  young  men 
perished,  among  them  the  son  of  the  Olynthian.  The  father  is 
charged  with  holding  an  assembly. 

For  the  import  and  the  legal  aspects  of  the  coetus ',  compare 
Livy,  ii,  28,  i :  "  Turn  vero  plebs  incerta,  quales  habitura  consules 
esset,  coetus  nocturnes,  pars  Esquiliis,  pars  in  Aventino,  facere, 
ne  in  foro  subitis  trepidaret  consiliis,  et  omnia  temere  ac  fortuito 
ageret ";  32,  i  :  "  Timor  inde  patres  incessit,  ne  si  dimissus  exer- 
citus  foret,  rursus  coetus  occulti  coniurationesque  fierent  ";  cf.  also 
xxx,  15;  xxxix,  15.  The  Declamation  against  Catiline,  which  is 
ascribed  to  M.  Porcius  Latro,  mentions  the  alleged  ordinance  of 
the  Twelve  Tables  :  "  Ne  quis  in  urbe  coetus  nocturnos  agitaret," 
and  the  Lex  Gabinia  declares :  "Qui  conciones  ullas  clandestinas  in 
urbe  conflavisset,  more  maiorum  capitali  supplicio  multaretur." 
Compare  also  Cicero,  Pro  Sulla,  5,  15  :  "  Ille  ambitus  iudicium 
tollere  ac  disturbare  primum  conflato  voluit  gladiatorum  ac  fugi- 
tivorum  tumultu,  deinde  id  quod  vidimus  omnes,  lapidatione 
atque  concursu." — Rein,  Criminalr.,  pp.  473.  520  sq. 

Contr.  iv,  i. 
Pater  a  sepulchris  a  luxurioso  raptus. 

While  a  certain  man  who  had  lost  three  children  was  sitting  by 
their  tomb,  he  was  carried  away  forcibly  by  his  wanton  son  to 
some  near-by  garden  where,  having  been  shaven  and  his  clothing 
changed,  he  was  compelled  to  take  part  in  a  banquet.  When 
released  he  brings  an  action  for  iniuria. 

The  action  of  this  controversia  comes  under  the  heading  of 
iniuria  status  libertatis.™ 

356  Cf.  Rein,  Romisches  Privatrecht,  p.  348. 


86  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

Contr.  iv,  4. 
Armis  sepulchri  victor. 

Law :  Let  there  be  an  action  at  law  for  the  violation  of  a  tomb. 

During  a  war  in  a  certain  state  a  valiant  man,  having  lost  his 
arms  in  battle,  took  other  arms  from  the  tomb  of  a  hero.  He 
fought  bravely  and  replaced  the  arms.  After  receiving  a  reward 
he  is  charged  with  violation  of  a  tomb. 

For  the  legal  aspects  of  this  theme,  compare  Amm.  Marc,  xvi,  8; 
Cass.  Var.  iv,  18.  Under  the  emperors  sepulchri  violatio  was  a 
crimen  extraor dinar ium  and  was  severely  punished ;  despoiling 
corpses,  if  done  manu  armata,  capite ;  if  sine  armis,  condem- 
natione  ad  metalla?™ 

Contr.  iv,  8. 
Patronus  operas  remissas  repetens. 

Law :  Let  what  is  effected  by  violence  and  intimidation  be 
invalid. 

A  patron  defeated  in  a  civil  war  and  proscribed,  threw  himself 
on  the  protection  of  a  freedman.  He  was  received  by  him,  and 
asked  to  give  up  all  claim  to  his  services.  The  patron  gave  up 
his  claims  with  a  signed  renunciation.  When  he  was  restored  to 
his  position  he  demanded  the  services.  The  freedman  protests. 

In  this  theme  may  be  a  suggestion  of  the  faithful  Tyndarus  in 
the  Captivi  of  Plautus. 

The  libertus  was  obliged  to  assume  the  name  of  his  former 
master  {patronus)  and  if  he  died  without  issue  the  patronus  became 
his  heir.  The  patronus  could  also,  like  a  father,  claim  obedience 
and  respect  from  the  libertus,  and  the  latter  was  compelled  to 
fulfil  what  he  had  promised  at  his  manumission — dona,  munera, 
bona,  operae.  He  was  even  obliged  to  confirm  these  promises  by 
oath  after  the  manumission.358 

Contr.  v,  i. 
Laqueus  incisus. 

Law :  Let  there  be  an  action  at  law  on  a  charge  of  malicious 
injury  not  in  the  code. 

357  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  pp.  899  sq. 

338  Cf.  Rein,  Romisches  Privatr.,  pp.  285  sq.  On  the  insolence  of  the 
freedmen  and  on  the  two  kinds  of  manumission  (one  by  the  praetor  which 
conferred  all  the  rights  of  a  Roman  citizen,  the  other  by  the  writing  or 
declaration  of  the  master,  which  conveyed  a  degree  of  liberty,  but  did  not 
give  the  freed  rank  among  the  citizens),  cf.  Tacitus,  Ann.  xiii,  26,  27. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  8/ 

A  certain  man,  having  suffered  shipwreck  and  having  lost  his 
wife  and  three  children  by  the  burning  of  his  house,  hanged  him- 
self. A  certain  one  of  the  passers-by  cut  him  down,  and  was 
brought  to  trial  by  the  man  he  had  saved  on  a  charge  of  malicious 
injury. 

Suicide  was  not  considered  by  the  Romans  as  a  crime.  On  the 
contrary  it  is  commended  by  Roman  writers.359  Nevertheless 
hanging  one's  self  seems  to  have  been  at  all  times  considered  as 
an  ignominious  mode  of  death  and  to  have  entailed  the  loss  of 
honorable  burial.360 

Contr.  v,  4. 

Damnatus  parricidi  alligans  fratrem. 

Law:  Let  the  man  who  has  given  false  testimony  be  bound 
under  the  control  of  him  against  whom  he  has  testified. 

A  father  went  away  with  one  of  his  two  sons ;  the  young  man 
returned  alone.  He  was  accused  of  parricide  by  his  brother  and 
condemned.  On  account  of  an  intervening  festival  the  punish- 
ment, in  accordance  with  the  law,  was  postponed,  and  the  father 
returned.  The  one  convicted  accused  his  brother  of  giving  false 
witness  and  seized  and  confined  him.  His  father  commanded 
him  to  release  his  brother  and  upon  his  refusal  disinherited  him. 

Falsum  testimonium  according  to  the  Twelve  Tables  was  pun- 
ished by  hurling  from  the  Tarpeian  rock.861 

Contr.  v,  5. 

Domus  cum  arbore  exusta. 

Law:  Let  the  man  who  has  knowingly  inflicted  an  injury  pay 
fourfold,  the  man  who  did  so  without  knowing,  the  simple 
amount. 

A  rich  man  asked  his  poor  neighbor  to  sell  him  a  tree  which 
he  said  was  in  his  way.  The  poor  man  refused.  The  rich  man 
set  fire  to  the  plane-tree,  with  which  the  house  also  burned.  For 
the  tree  he  promises  fourfold,  for  the  house  the  simple  value. 

359  Cf.  Seneca,  De  providentia  2,  3;    Consol.  ad  Marc.  22;    Tacitus,   Ann. 
vi,  29,  30  ;  xii,  59 ;  xiii,  30  ;    Hist,  ii,  49 ;  Pliny,  Epist.  i,  12,  22  ;  iii,  7,  16; 
Cicero,  De  fin.  iii,  18. 

360  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  pp.  883-6  ;  Servius  ad  Verg.,  Aen.  xii,  603  ;  Orelli, 
Inscr.  4404. 

361  Cf.    Rein,    Criminals,   pp.   767. 788  sq- ;    Gellius,    Noct.   Att.    xx,    i. 
Cases  of  action  for  this  crime,  Livy,  iii,  24  sq.,  29  ;  iv,  21. 


88  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA. 

A  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables  provides  that  the  illegal  destruction 
of  other  people's  fruit  trees  or  vines  shall  be  paid  for  at  the  rate  of 
twenty-five  asses  for  each  tree.362 

Contr.  vi,  2. 

Exul  pater  fundo  prohibitus. 

Laws :  Let  it  be  unlawful  to  aid  an  exile  with  shelter  and  food. 
Let  the  man  condemned  for  accidental  manslaughter  be  exiled  for 
five  years. 

A  certain  man  who  had  a  son  and  a  daughter,  being  condemned 
for  accidental  manslaughter  and  having  gone  into  exile,  was  in  the 
habit  of  coming  to  an  estate  near  the  boundary.  His  son  discov- 
ering this  punished  the  bailif.  The  bailif  shut  out  the  father  who 
thereupon  began  to  visit  his  daughter.  She  was  accused  of 
having  harbored  an  exile  but  was  acquitted  by  the  advocacy  of 
her  brother.  After  the  five  years  the  father  disinherits  the  son. 

Exilium  was  the  prohibition  of  residence  in  a  certain  country 
or  city,  with  a  command  to  live  in  a  certain  place.  During  the 
epoch  of  the  kings  and  in  the  republican  period  it  comprised 
voluntary  banishment  as  well  as  the  penal  aquae  et  ignis  interdictio. 
In  the  times  of  the  emperors  this  latter  passed  over  into  the 
deportatio.  Deportatio  was  for  life,  and  entailed  the  loss  of  civitas 
and  confiscation  of  property.  Alongside  of  this  severe  form  of 
banishment  there  was  -inflicted  a  milder  degree,  the  relegatio, 
which  was  not  followed  by  loss  of  civitas  and  confiscation.  The 
five  grades  of  banishment  were:  in  insulam  deportatio;  depor- 
tatio ;  in  insulam  relegatio ;  in  perpetuum  relegatio  ;  in  tempus 
relegatio™ 

Contr.  vi,  3. 

Mater  nothi  lecta  pro  patre. 

Laws  :  Let  the  elder  brother  divide  the  patrimony,  the  younger 
take  his  choice.  Let  it  be  lawful  to  acknowledge  a  son  by  a 
bondwoman. 

A  certain  man  having  a  legitimate  son,  acknowledged  another 
by  a  bondwoman  and  died.  The  elder  brother  made  such  a 
division  that  the  whole  patrimony  was  placed  on  one  side  and  on 
the  other  the  mother  of  the  illegitimate  son.  The  younger  brother 
chose  his  mother,  and  accused  his  brother  of  defrauding  him. 

362 Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  p.  333;  Pliny,  Nat.  Hist,  xviii,  I  ;    Gaius,   Com- 
mentary to  the  Twelve  Tables  iv,  1 1. 
363  Cf.  Rein,  Criminals,  p.  915. 


THE  THEMES  TREATED  BY  THE  ELDER  SENECA.     89 

The  "  circumscriptio  "  of  this  case  might  come  under  stelliona- 
tus,  which  implied  the  taking  of  advantage  in  regard  to  property 
without  necessarily  coming  under  dolum 


Contr.  vi,  5. 
Iphicrates  reus. 

Law  :  Let  whosoever  offers  violence  in  a  court  of  justice  be 
liable  to  capital  punishment. 

Iphicrates  having  been  sent  against  the  King  of  the  Thracians 
after  being  thrice  defeated  in  battle  concluded  a  treaty  with  him 
and  married  his  daughter.  When  he  had  returned  to  Athens 
and  was  on  his  trial  certain  Thracians  armed  with  knives  appeared 
about  the  court,  and  the  defendant  himself  drew  his  sword.  When 
the  judges  were  summoned  to  give  their  decision  they  publicly 
voted  for  an  acquittal.  Iphicrates  is  accused  of  offering  violence 
in  a  court  of  justice.365 

Appearance  in  the  court  or  in  the  contio  with  arms  for  an  evil 
purpose  came  under  the  Lex  Julia,366  under  vis  pub  lie  a  (in  distinc- 
tion from  vis  privata)  which  was  punished  by  aquae  et  ignis 
interdiction 

Contr.  vi,  6. 

Adultera  venefica. 

Law  :  Let  there  be  an  action  at  law  for  poisoning. 

A  certain  man  who  had  a  wife  and  a  marriageable  daughter  by 
her  informed  his  wife  to  whom  he  was  intending  to  betroth  the 
daughter.  The  wife  said  :  "  She  shall  die  sooner  than  marry  that 
man."  The  girl  died  before  the  marriage  day  with  suspicious 
signs  of  cruelty  and  poison.  The  father  put  a  maid-servant  to 
the  torture.  She  said  she  knew  nothing  about  poison  but  she  did 
know  of  the  adultery  of  her  mistress  with  him  to  whom  the  father 
intended  to  betroth  his  daughter.  The  man  charges  his  wife  with 
poisoning  and  adultery. 

The  earliest  punishment  for  murder  by  poisoning  as  related  by 
Livy,368  took  place  332  B.  C.  The  most  prominent  men  died 

3W  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  pp.  331  sq.  Rein  says  that  the  Roman  defi- 
nition of  stellionatus  was  quite  indefinite. 

365  jror  tne  historical  basis  of  this  Controversia^see  above,  p.  66  sq. 

366  Mentioned  in  Cicero,  Phil,  i,  9  sq. 

367  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  pp.  745.  750. 

368viii,  18,  2  sqq.,  where  it  is,  however  given  as  a  tradition. 


QO  THE   THEMES   TREATED   BY   THE   ELDER   SENECA. 

mysteriously369  until  a  maid -servant  revealed  to  the  aedile  Q. 
Fabius  Maximus  the  fact  that  women  of  high  position  were  pre- 
paring and  distributing  poison.  With  the  consent  of  the  senate 
the  matter  was  followed  up,  and  a  number  of  women  were  found 
engaged  in  the  preparation  of  poison.  When  they  were  com- 
pelled to  drink  their  own  preparations  twenty  of  them  died,  and 
in  the  pursuance  of  the  investigation  about  one  hundred  and 
seventy  were  condemned.  (The  manner  of  punishment  is  not 
recorded.)  The  affair  was  also  considered  as  a  prodigium 
requiring  expiation,  and  a  dictator  was  chosen  clavi  figendi 
causa™ 

In  184  B.  C.  the  praetor  Q.  Naevius  sat  in  judgment  on  murders 
by  poison  which  often  occurred  in  the  country  towns  about  Rome, 
and  according  to  Valerius  Antias  two  thousand  people  were 
found  guilty.371  Two  years  later  on  the  sudden  death  of  C.  Cal- 
purnius  Piso  and  other  prominent  men  a  suspicion  of  poisoning 
arose,  and  by  a  senatus  consultum  the  praetor  C.  Claudius  was 
given  charge  of  the  quaestio  concerning  murders  by  poison  in  the 
city  and  vicinity,  and  the  praetor  C.  Maenius  the  quaestio  outside. 
Of  those  condemned  in  the  city  only  Quarta  Hostilia,  the  wife  of 
the  murdered  consul,  is  mentioned.  Her  guilt  was  proved  by 
numerous  witnesses.372  C.  Maenius  found  so  much  to  do  outside 
the  city  that  he  wrote  to  the  senate  that  he  had  already  condemned 
three  thousand  persons  and  that  the  number  of  the  suspects  was 
constantly  growing  in  consequence  of  new  informations.  In  the 
following  year  the  praetor  urbanus  P.  Mucius  Scaevola  held  an 
investigation  of  cases  of  murder  by  poison  in  the  city  and 
vicinity.373  Investigations  were  again  held  at  the  time  of  the  third 
Punic  war,  and  two  prominent  matrons,  Publia  the  wife  of 
Postumius  Albinus,  and  Licinia  the  wife  of  Claudius  Asellus,  were 
accused  of  having  poisoned  their  husbands,  and  put  to  death  by 
the  sentence  of  a  family  court  (iudicium  domesticum)™ 

The  last  accusation  for  poisoning  recorded  prior  to  the  Lex 
Cornelia  is  that  of  Q.  Varius  Hybrida,  known  through  the  Lex 
Varia.  He  was  executed  "  summo  cruciatu  supplicioque."3' 

369"Cum  primores  civitatis  similibus  morbis  eodemque  ferme  omnes 
eventu  morerentur." 

370  Cf.  Valer.  Max.,  ii,  5,  3;   Orosius,  iii,  10. 

371  Cf.  Livy,  xxxix,  41.  312Cf.  ibid,  xl,  37.  373  Cf.  ibid,  xl,  43  sq. 

374  l<  Cognatorum  decreto  nectae  sunt."     Cf.  Livy,  Epit.  xlviii ;    Valer. 
Max.,  vi,  3,  8. 

375  Cf.  Cicero,  De  nat.  dear,  iii,  33,  81. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  9 1 

During  the  civil  war  between  Marius  and  Sulla  with  other  evils 
and  crimes,  poisoning  also  increased.376  Sulla  endeavored  to 
check  these  evils  by  his  Lex  (hence  called  Cornelia)  de  sicariis  et 
veneficis.377  The  fifth  division  treats  of  murder  by  poisoning,  and 
declares  that  the  praetor  or  iudex  quaestionis  shall  judge  "  qui- 
cumque  fecerit,  vendiderit,  emerit,  dederit  (sc.  venenum)."378  The 
penalty,  as  also  for  other  kinds  of  murder  and  arson,  was  aquae 
et  ignis  inter dictio  for  freemen  and  death  for  slaves.379 

In  the  imperial  period  the  punishment  for  murder  was  more 
severe  :  deportaiio  in  insulam  for  altiores,  execution  for  honestiores, 
while  humiliores  were  thrown  to  the  wild  beasts  or  put  on  the 
cross.  A  senatus  consultum  extended  the  compass  of "  venenum," 
and  punished  all  those  who  used  a  medicamentum  through  which 
the  life  or  health  of  the  person  taking  it  was  endangered  (i.  e. 
medicines  to  bring  about  conception  or  abortion). 

Under  Augustus  three  accusations  of  murder  by  poison  are 
recorded:  against  Moschus  a  rhetor  of  Pergamus,  who  was 
defended  by  Asinius  Pollio  and  C.  Manlius  ;880  against  Apollo- 
dorus,  also  a  rhetor  of  Pergamus,  who  was  defended  by  the  same 
Asinius  Pollio.  Apollodorus  was  condemned,  and  went  into  exile 
at  Massilia  ;381  against  Nonius  Asprenas,  a  friend  of  Augustus,  who 
was  accused  by  Cassius  Severus  of  poisoning  one  hundred  and 
thirty  guests.  He  was  likewise  defended  by  Asinius  Pollio.382 

Under  Tiberius  occurred  the  poisoning  of  Germanicus  in  19 
A.  D.  by  Cn.  Piso  and  his  wife  Plancina  perhaps  not  without  the 
connivance  of  the  emperor  who  was  jealous  of  Germanicus. 
Before  his  death  Germanicus  demanded  that  his  friends  should 
become  the  accusers  of  Piso.  The  senate  conducted  the  investi- 
gation and  Cn.  Piso,  despairing  of  the  result,  committed  suicide. 
Plancina  was  at  first  pardoned  at  the  intercession  of  the  Empress 
Agrippina,  but  after  the  death  of  the  latter  in  33  A.  D.  she  was 

376  Cf.  Cicero,  Pro  Cluentio  54. 

377  Commonly  abbreviated  :  Lex  Cornelia  de  Sicariis. 

378  Cf.  Cicero,  Pro  Cluent.  54. 

379  Cf.  ibid.  71. 

380  Cf.  Horace,  Epist.  \  5,  9,  and  Porphyrion  ad  loc. 

381  Cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  ii,  5,  13. 

382  Cf.  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  xxxv,  12  ;   Suetonius,  Octav.  56;  Quintilian,  Inst. 
Orat.  x,  i,  22;  xi,  i,  57. 


92  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

again  accused  and  likewise  committed  suicide.383  The  poisoning 
of  Drusus  the  son  of  Tiberius  took  place  at  the  instigation  of 
Sejanus  by  the  eunuch  Lygdus,  with  the  knowledge  of  Drusus's 
wife  Livia  or  Livilla.  The  affair  remained  for  a  time  doubtful  and 
obscure  until  Apicata,  the  wife  of  Sejanus,  after  the  execution  of 
her  husband,  betrayed  all  in  a  letter  to  Tiberius.  An  action  fol- 
lowed :  Eudemus  and  Lygdus  when  tortured  confessed  everything, 
and  all  the  participants  in  the  crime  were  executed  in  31  A  D.384 

The  Emperor  Claudius,  who  committed  many  murders,  was  at 
last  himself  poisoned  by  his  wife  Agrippina.  The  poison  was  pre- 
pared by  the  notorious  Locusta,  and  the  physician  Xenophon 
completed  the  deed. 385  Agrippina  also  caused  the  poisoning  of 
Junius  Silanus,  proconsul  in  Asia,  by  P.  Celer  and  Hetius ; 
another  of  her  victims  was  Narcissus  the  freedman  of  Claudius.386 
Locusta  also  assisted  in  the  poisoning  of  Brittanicus  by  Nero  in  55 
B.  C.  She  had  been  condemned  long  before,  but  on  account  of 
her  great  skill  was  kept  in  custody  and  forced  to  be  the  tool  of 
prominent  persons.387  Nero  also  caused  the  freedmen  Doryphorus 
and  Pallas  to  be  poisoned.388 

It  may  be  noted  that  under  Domitian  poisoning  was  very  fre- 
quent, especially  by  means  of  poisoned  needles.389 

Contr.  vi,  7. 

Demehs  qui  filio  cessit  uxorem. 
Law  :    Let  there  be  an  action  at  law  for  madness. 
A  man  having  two  sons  married  a  second  wife.     When  one  of 

385  Cf.  Tacitus,  Ann.  ii,  69-82;  iii,  10-18  ;  vi,  26;  Dio  Cassius,  Ivii,  18  ; 
Suetonius,  Tiber.  52;  Vitell.  2;  Calig.  1.2;  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  xi,  37  ;  Zon- 
aeus,  xi,  2.  In  Tacitus  Ann.  iii,  22  sq.  it  is  related  that  Emilia  Lepida, 
who  was  charged  with  feigning  that  she  had  given  birth  to  a  child  by  Pub- 
lius  Quirinus  her  husband,  and  was  further  charged  with  adulteries,  poison- 
ings, and  treasonable  dealings  with  the  Chaldeans  about  the  fate  and 
continuance  of  the  imperial  house,  was  interdicted  from  fire  and  water  ; 
ibid,  iv,  22  it  is  stated  that  Numantina  was  accused  of  having,  by  charms  and 
potions,  disordered  the  brain  of  her  husband. 

384  Cf.  Tacitus,  Ann.  iv,  8-n  ;  Dio  Cassius  Ivii,  22  ;  Iviii,  n. 

385  Cf.  Tacitus,  Ann.  xii,  66  sq;  Dio  Cassius,  Ix,  34;    Suetonius,  Claud. 
44  sq. 

386  Cf.  Tacitus,  Ann.  xiii,  i  ;  Dio  Cassius,  Ixi,  6. 

387  Cf.  Tacitus,  Ann.  xiii,  15  sq.;  Dio  Cassius,  Ixi,  7  ;    Suetonius,  Nero  33 

388  Cf.  Tacitus,  Ann.  xiv,  65. 

389 Cf.  Dio  Cassius,  Ixvii,  u.  On  this  whole  subject  compare  Rein, 
Criminalr.,  pp.  406-8.  410.  414.  419.  426  sq. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  93 

the  young  men  was  ill  nigh  unto  death  the  physicians  said  that 
the  cause  of  his  illness  was  a  mental  trouble.  When  the  father 
compelled  the  son  at  the  sword's  point  to  tell  him  the  truth  the 
young  man  confessed  that  he  loved  his  step-mother.  The  father 
gave  up  his  wife  to  him,  and  thereupon  was  charged  with  insanity 
by  his  other  son.390 

The  Twelve  Tables  place  a  mature  person  of  unsound  mind 
under  the  care  of  his  kinsmen  (agnail}  or  where  he  has  none 
under  that  of  his  gens  (gentiles)™* 

Contr.  vii,  7. 

Law  :     Let  there  be  an  action  at  law  for  treason. 

A  father  and  son  desired  military  command  ;  the  son  was  pre- 
ferred over  the  father,  and  having  engaged  in  battle  with  the 
enemy  was  captured.  An  embassy  of  ten  was  sent  to  ransom 
the  commander.  While  they  were  on  their  way  the  father  met 
them  with  gold,  and  informed  them  that  his  son  had  been  crucified, 
and  that  he  himself  had  carried  the  gold  for  his  ransom  too  late. 
When  they  reached  the  crucified  commander  he  said  to  them  : 
"  Beware  of  treason."  The  father  is  accused  of  treason. 

Proditio  consists  in  i.  Treacherous  or  cowardly  surrender  of 
territory  or  people  to  the  enemy.  2.  Desertion.  3.  Going  over  to 
the  enemy.  4.  Inciting  a  foreign  enemy  to  war  against  Rome. 
5.  Probably  any  support  of  the  enemy  (with  arms,  money,  release 
of  hostages,  etc.).  The  punishment  was  death,  including  hanging 
on  the  arbor  infelix,  hurling  from  the  Tarpeian  rock392  and  exe- 
tion  with  the  axe.393  In  the  time  of  the  emperors  the  damnatio 
memoriae?'*  consisting  of  tearing  down  the  house  of  the  con- 

390  jror  tne  historical  suggestion  in  this  theme,  and  the  parallels  to  it,  see 
above,  p.  67. 

391  Cf.  Rein,  Privatr.>  pp.  259  sq.;  Ad  Heren.  i,   13;  Cicero,  Tusc.  Disp. 
iii,  5  ;  De  inv.  ii,  50  :  "  Si  furiosus  est  agnatorum  gentiliumque  in  eo  pecu- 
niaque  eius   potestas  esto  ;  "    Varro,  De  re  rust,   i,   2  :  "  Mente  est  captus 
atque  ad  agnatos  et  gentiles  est  deducendum."    Rein  remarks  that  no  great 
stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the  various  expressions,  as  they  have  no  legal  import- 
ance, as  every  person  of  unsound  mind,  whether  furiosus  or  demens,  was 
placed  under  curatio. 

392  Cf.  Livy,  vii,  20,  12  ;  Dion.  Hal.,  Rom.  Antiq.  viii,  78  ;  Seneca,  De  ira 
i,  16. 

393  Cf.  Livy,  ii,  5,  8  ;  41,9;  viii,  20,  8  ;  x,  i  ;  Dion  Hal.,  Rom.  Antiq.  v,  8. 

394  Cf.  Quintilian,  Insl.  Orat.  iii,  7,  20  :  "  post  mortem  adiecta  quibusdam 
ignominia  est." 


94  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

victed,395  was  a  not  uncommon  occurrence.  Sometimes  also  com- 
mand was  given  that  no  member  of  the  family  should  bear  the 
name  of  the  criminal,396  nor  were  his  relations  allowed  to  mourn 
for  him.  His  property  also  was  confiscated.397  The  Lex  Julia  de 
maiestate,  issued  by  Caesar,  prescribed  the  same  penalty  of 
aquae  et  ignis  inter didio  for  all  kinds  of  treason.398 

Contr.  viii,  i. 
Orbata  post  laqueum  sacrilega. 

Law :  Let  a  magistrate  inflict  punishment  on  one  who  has 
confessed  guilt. 

A  woman  having  lost  her  husband  and  two  sons  hanged  her- 
self, but  a  third  son  cut  her  down.  She,  when  a  sacrilege  had 
been  committed,  and  the  perpetrator  was  being  sought  for,  told 
the  magistrate  that  she  was  the  guilty  party.  The  magistrate 
wishes  to  inflict  punishment  on  her  on  the  ground  of  her  confes- 
sion. The  son  protests. 

Sacrilegium  was  a  term  at  first  applied  to  the  despoiling  of  a 
temple,  the  theft  of  sacred  objects.  In  the  imperial  period  the 
term  was  given  a  wider  scope,  embracing  any  outrage  on  religion, 
any  wicked  deed  which  implied  a  violation  of  the  sacred  and 
moral  order,  especially  lack  of  respect  toward  the  emperor, 
heresy,  disturbance  of  worship,  etc.  Even  in  the  earlier  period, 
however,  sacrilegium  in  the  wider  sense  was  prohibited  and 
regarded  as  an  act  deserving  the  severest  punishment.  Of  great 
importance  in  regard  to  this  crime  was  the  Lex  Julia  peculatus 
(i.  e.  the  unlawful  appropriation  of  public  property).  It  read  : 
"  Ne  quis  ex  pecunia  sacra  religiosa  publicave  auferat,  neve  inter- 
cipiat  neve  in  rem  suam  vestat."  Compare  also  the  definition  of 

395  Cf.  ibid. :  "utMaelio,  cuius  domus  solo  aequata  " ;  Livy,  viii,  20,  8; 
Cicero,  Pro  domo  38. 

396  Cf.  Quintilian,  /.  c. :  "  Marcoque  Manlio,  cuius  praenomen  a  familia 
in  posteriorem  exemptum  est " ;  Tacitus,  Ann.  ii,  32. 

397  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  pp.  475-7. 

398  Cf.  ibid.,  pp.  518  sq.    A  specialization  of  the  law  on  treason  under  the 
emperors  is  illustrated  by  the  actions  at  law  described  in  Tacitus,  Ann.  i, 
72-4.    For  action  for  treason  under  Tiberius,  cf .  Tacitus,  Ann.  iii,  70  (Lucius 
Ennius,  for  converting  a  silver  effigy  of  the  prince  to  the  ordinary  purposes 
to  which  silver  is  applied);  iv,  18  sq.  (Caius  Silius. —  A  case  where  a  son 
accused  his  father,  both  named  Vibius  Serenus,  of  plotting  against  Tiberius 
is  found  ibid.  28  sq.) 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   THE    ELDER   SENECA.  95 

Seneca  in  De  beneficiis  vii,  7  :  "  Quisquis  id,  quod  deorum  est, 
susmlit  et  consumpsit  atque  in  usum  suum  vertit,  sacrilegus  est." 
The  law  also  prohibited  the  violation  of  the  walls  which  belonged 
to  the  res  sanctae  ;399  also  to  scale  and  cross  over  the  city  wall  by 
means  of  a  ladder,  which  was  considered  a  hostile  action  and 
unworthy  of  a  Roman  citizen.  On  the  other  hand  the  plundering 
of  temples  in  an  enemy's  land  was  considered  lawful.400  The 
penalty  in  the  Lex  Julia  for  sacrilege  was  aquae  et  ignis  inter- 
dictio  which  however  was  soon  replaced  by  deportatio.  Under 
imperial  rule  there  was  introduced  a  variety  of  punishments.  The 
damnatio  ad  bestias  and  less  often  burning  alive  were  inflicted  on 
those  "  qui  manu  facta  templum  effregerunt  et  dona  dei  noctu 
tulerunt."  "  Si  quis  interdiu  modicum  aliquid  de  templo  tulit," 
the  guilty  one  was  condemned  ad  metalla,  and  when  honestiore 
loco  natus  to  deportatio,  although  in  this  case  also  the  death 
penalty  might  be  inflicted.401 

Contr.  ix,  2. 

Law  :  Let  there  be  an  action  at  law  for  injuring  the  dignity  of 
the  state. 

The  proconsul  Flaminius  being  requested  at  dinner  by  a  cour- 
tesan who  said  that  she  had  never  seen  a  man  decapitated,  put  to 
death  one  of  those  condemned.  He  is  accused  of  injuring  the 
dignity  of  the  state.402 

In  the  Lex  Cornelia  de  maiestate  (i.  e.  actions  for  crimes  which 
tended  to  affect  and  diminish  the  majesty  and  dignity  of  the 
state}  was  included  the  conduct  of  a  magistrate  when  unmindful 
of  his  dignity  he  compromised  the  Roman  majesty.403  The 
penalty  was  as  for  perduellio,  aquae  et  ignis  interdiction 

399  Cf.  Cicero,  De  nat,  deor.  iii,  40,  94  :  "  Est  enim  mihi  tecum  pro  aris  et 
focis  certamen,  et  pro  deorum  templis  atque  delubris  proque  Urbis  muris, 
quos  vos,  pontifices,  sanctos  esse  dicitis.  ..."     Plutarch,  Quaest.  Rom.  c. 
27  :  "  Trav  reZ^of  afiifirfkov  K.O!  lepbv  vopi^ovcL  ";  Dion.  Hal.,  Antiq.  Rom.  i,  88  ; 
Isidorus,  xv,  4. 

400  Cf.  Seneca,  Epist.  87.  401  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  pp.  691-4. 

402  For  the  historical  basis  of  this  Controversia  see  above,  p.  68. 

403  Cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  ix,  2, 14  :  "  in  eo  autem,  quod  sub  praetexto  publicae 
maiestatis  agitur,  quidquid  peccatur,  maiestatis  actione  vindicandum  est;" 
ibid.  15:  "Is  laedit  populi  Romani  maiestatem,  qui  aliquid publico nomine 
facit " 

404  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  pp.  512.  525.  527  ;  Tacitus,  Ann.  iii,  38,  50  end; 
"  bonis  amissis  aqua  at  igni  arceatur,  quod  perinde  censeo  ac  si  lege  maies- 
tatis teneretur." 


g  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA. 

Contr.  ix,  3. 

Laws  :  Let  acts  effected  by  violence  and  intimidation  be  invalid. 
— Let  agreements  according  to  law  be  valid. — Let  him  who  has 
recognized  a  child  who  has  been  exposed  take  it  back  after 
paying  for  its  nurture. 

A  man  took  up  two  sons  who  had  been  exposed,  and  educated 
them.  When  their  natural  father  sought  for  them  he  promised 
that  he  would  show  where  they  were  if  he  would  give  him  one  of 
them.  The  agreement  is  made  whereupon  he  restores  the  two 
sons  asking  for  one. 

By  the  Roman  law  the  father  originally  had  the  right  to  kill  or 
expose  the  newborn  child.  This  right  arose  from  the  custom, 
common  in  antiquity,  of  destroying  deformed  infants.  But  this 
right  was  accorded  not  without  certain  limitations.  According  to 
the  decision  ascribed  to  Romulus,405  the  father  was  obliged  before 
exposing  the  child  to  show  it  to  five  neighbors  who  were  to 
examine  whether  the  child  was  deformed  or  to  be  exposed  on 
account  of  its  sickliness.  Dionysius  Halicarnassus  adds  that  the 
father  was  obliged  to  bring  up  male  children  and  the  first-born 
daughter.  This  latter  statement  of  Dion.  Hal.  does  not  fully 
accord  with  the  first,  according  to  which  all  children  before  being 
exposed  had  to  be  shown  to  neighbors.  The  Twelve  Tables  also 
command  that  sickly  and  deformed  children  be  exposed.  The 
exposure  and  killing  of  the  deformed  ("  foedum  ac  turpe  pro- 
digium  ")  was  even  regarded  as  a  sacred  duty,  lest  the  state  might 
suffer  some  calamity.406  But  fathers  acted  quite  arbitrarily  on  this 
matter,  and  exposed  their  offspring  for  other  reasons  than  defor- 
mity and  weakness,  as  for  instance  on  account  of  poverty,  suspicion 
that  they  were  children  of  another  man,  etc.,  without  being  inter- 
fered with  by  the  state.  An  instance  of  exposure  in  the  come- 
dians is  Terence,  Hecy.  iii,  3,  40.  Dio  Cassius,  xlv,  i,  relates  that 
Octaviamus  was  intended  for  exposure  by  his  father  because  it 
had  been  announced  to  him  that  the  child  would  become  the 
ruler  of  Rome,  and  Suetonius,  Octav.  65,  relates  that  the  child  of 
Julia,  grandchild  of  Augustus,  was  exposed  by  command  of  the 
emperor  because  born  in  adultery.  The  frequent  occurrence  of 
exposure  in  the  provinces  is  attested  by  Pliny,  Epist.  x,  71  sq.407 

405  By  Dion.  Hal.,  Antiq.  Rom.  ii,  15. 

406  Cf.  Livy,  xxvii,  37  ;  Seneca,  De  ira  i,  15:    "  portentosos  foetus  extin- 
guimus,  liberos  quoqne  si  debiles  monstrosve  editi  sunt  mergimus." 

407  Cf.  Seneca,  Contr.  x,  4,  15  sq. 


THE   THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA.  97 

In  the  imperial  period  the  custom  grew  so  that  the  state  felt  con- 
strained to  declare  it  a  crime.  The  penaltieswere  made  more  and 
more  severe  until  it  became  a  capital  offence.408 

As  regards  gesta  per  vim  metumque,  L.  Octavius,  an  older  con- 
temporary of  Cicero,  proclaimed  an  edict  called  after  him  formula 
Octaviana :  "  quod  vi  metusve  causa  gestum  erit,  ratum  non 
habeto."409 

Contr.  ix,  4. 

Law  :  Let  the  hands  be  cut  off  of  the  man  who  has  struck  his 
father. 

A  tyrant  summoned  to  his  citadel  a  father  with  his  two  sons, 
and  commanded  the  young  men  to  strike  their  father.  One  of 
them  threw  himself  headlong,  the  other  carried  out  the  command 
of  the  tyrant  and  being  received  into  his  friendship  killed  him 
and  received  a  reward.  His  hands  are  demanded  and  his  father 
defends  him. 

Iniuriae  done  to  parents  were  regarded  as  atroces410  and  were 
in  the  imperial  epoch  referred  for  punishment  to  the  praefectus 
urbis,  in  the  provinces  to  the  governor:  "si  filius  matrem  aut 
patrum  (i.  e.  parentes  in  infinitum,  grandparents,  etc.),  quos  vene- 
rari  oportet,  contumeliis  (this  iniuria  is  more  specifically 
detailed  as  convicium  and  pulsare)  afficit,  vel  impias  manus  eis 
infert ;  praefectus  urbis  delictum  ad  publicam  pietatem  pro  modo 
eius  vindicabit."411 

Contr.  x,  i. 

Let  there  be  an  action  at  law  for  injury. 

A  man  who  had  a  son  and  a  rich  enemy  was  found  slain  but 
despoiled  of  nothing  which  he  had.  The  young  man  persisted 
in  following  the  rich  man  in  shabby  garments.  The  rich  man 
brought  him  to  a  court  of  justice  and  demanded  that  he  should 
accuse  him  if  he  had  any  suspicions.  The  poor  man  said :  "I 
will  accuse  you  when  I  can."  When  the  rich  man  became  a  can- 
didate for  public  office  and  was  rejected  he  accused  the  poor 
man  of  injury. 

408  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  pp.  441-4. 

409  Cf.  Rein,  Privatr.,  pp.    503  sq.  ;    Cicero,  In  Verr.  i,  50  ;    iii,   65  ;    Ad 
Quint,  fratr.  i,  i,  21  ;  Seneca,  Contr»  ix,  3. 

410  Cf.  Ulpiun.  vii.,  §8. 

411  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  p.  382. 

7 


98  THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY   1HE    ELDER   SENECA. 

The  definitions  of  iniuria  in  the  successive  edicts  of  the  prae- 
tors, reaching  down  to  the  imperial  period,  contained  the  decision 
that  an  iniuria  was  committed  :  "  si  ad  invidiam  alicuius  veste 
lugubri  utatur  aut  squalida  aut  si  barbam  demittat,  etc.,"412  since 
mourning  garb  was  worn  to  indicate  that  a  criminal  action  was 
pending  over  some  one.*13 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
Books. 

Bernhardy,  Grundriss  der  romischen  Litteratur.  Braun- 
schweig. 1865. 

Blass,  Die  griechische  Beredsamkeit  in  dem  Zeitalter  von 
Alexander  bis  auf  Augustus.  Berlin.  1865. 

,  Geschichte  der  attischen  Beredsamkeit.    Leipzig.     1887. 

Bursian,  Edition  of  Seneca.     Leipzig.     1857. 

Cucheval,  Histoire  de  1'eloquence  romaine  depuis  la  mort  de 
Cice"ron  jusqu'  a"  1'av^nement  de  1'empereur  Hadrien.  1893. 

Clinton,  Fasti  Hellenici.     1851. 

Freeman,  History  of  Federal  Government.     1863. 

Friedlander,  Darstellung  der  Sittengeschichte  Roms.     1890. 

Hulsebos,  De  educatione  et  institutione  apud  Romanos.    1875. 

Jebb,  The  Attic  Orators.     1876. 

Mayor,  Edition  of  Juvenal.     1880. 

Mommsen,  Romische  Geschichte. 

Monceaux,  Les  Africains,  6tude  sur  la  litte*rature  Latine 
d'Afrique.  1894. 

Miiller,  H.  J.,  Edition  of  Seneca.  Vienna,  Prague,  and 
Leipzig.  1887. 

Niebuhr,  M.  Tullii  Ciceronis  orationum  pro  M.  Fonteio  et  pro 
Rabirio  fragmenta,  T.  Livii  Lib.  xci  fragmentum  plenius  et  emen- 
datius,  L.  Senecae  fragmenta  ex  membranis  Bibliothecae  Vati- 
canae.  Rome.  1820. 

Rohde,  Der  griechische  Roman.     1876. 

Schanz,  Geschichte  der  romischen  Litteratur. 

Schott,  Edition  of  Seneca.     1627. 

412  Cf.  Digest.  (Pandectae]  L.  15  §  27,  de  iniuria. 

413  Cf.  Rein,  Criminalr.,  p.  365. 


THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER   SENECA.  99 

Simcox,  A  History  of  Latin  Literature  from  Ennius  to 
Boethius.  1883. 

Susemihl,  Geschichte  der  griechischen  Litteratur  in  der  Alex- 
andrinerzeit.  Leipzig.  1892. 

Teuffel,  History  of  Roman  Literature.     1891. 

Thiele,  Hermagoras,  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  der  Rhetorik. 
Strassburg.  1893. 

Westermann,  Geschichte  der  Beredsamkeit  in  Griechenland 
und  Rom.  Leipzig.  1833. 

Periodicals. 

Dirksen,  Abhandlungen  der  Koniglichen  Akademie  der  Wis- 
senschaften.  Berlin.  1847.  i,  pp.  48-79. 

Spengel,  Gelehrte  Anzeigen  der  bayrischen  Akademie  der 
Wissenschaften.  Munich.  1858.  Vol.  xlvii,  pp.  1-30. 

Kiessling,  Rheinisches  Museum.     1861.     Vol.  xvi,  pp.  50-61. 

Spengel,  Rheinisches  Museum.    1863.    Vol.  xviii,  pp.  481-526. 

Morawski,  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  osterreichischen  Gymnasien. 
1881.  Vol.  xliv,  pp.  1-12. 

Rhode,  Rheinisches  Museum.     1886.     Vol.  xli,  pp.  170-190. 

Monographs. 

Bonnell,  De  mutata  sub  primis  Caesaribus  eloquentiae 
Romanae  condicione,  imprimis  de  Rhetorum  scholis,  commen- 
tatio  historica.  Berlin.  1836. 

Spengel,  Ueber  das  Studium  der  Rhetorik  bei  den  Alten. 
Munich.  1842. 

Hofig,  De  Senecae  rhetoris  quattuor  codicibus  mss.  Schottianis 
ad  Friedericum  Haasium  professorem  Vratislaviensem  epistula. 
Gorlitz.  1858. 

Koerber,  Ueber  den  Rhetor  Seneca  und  die  romische  Rhetorik 
seiner  Zeit.  Marburg.  1864. 

Konitzer,  Quaestiones  in  Senecam  patrem  criticae.  Breslau. 
1864. 

Kiessling,  Beitrage  zur  Texteskritik  des  Rhetor  Seneca. 
Breslau.  1864. 

Hoffmann,  Ueber  eine  Admonter  Pergament-Handschrift  der 
Excerpte  des  alteren  Seneca.  Posen.  1867. 

Friedlander,  De  Senecae  controversiis  in  Gestis  Romanorum 
adhibitis.  Regimonti.  1871. 


IOO          THE    THEMES    TREATED    BY    THE    ELDER    SENECA. 

Sander,  Quaestiones  in  Senecam  rhetorem  syntacticae. 
Greifswald.  1872. 

Gruppe,  Quaestiones  Annaeanae.     Sedini.     1873. 

Sander,  Der  Sprachgebrauch  des  Rhetors  Annaeus  Seneca. 
No.  i.  Berlin.  1877. 

Buschmann,  Charakteristik  der  griechischen  Rhetorik. 
Parchim.  1878. 

Leo,  De  Senecae  tragoediis  observationes  criticae.  Berlin. 
1878. 

Karsten,  De  elocutione  rhetorica  qualis  invenitur  in  Annaei 
Senecae  suasoriis  et  controversiis.  Rotterdam.  1881. 

Buschmann,  Die  "'  enfants  terribles  "  unter  den  Rhetoren  des 
Seneca.  1883. 

Baumm,  De  rhetoribus  graecis  a  Seneca  in  suasoriis  et 
controversiis  adhibitis.  Kreuzburg.  1885. 

Morawski,  De  rhetoribus  latinis.     Cracow.     1892. 

Hainmer,  Beitrage  zu  den  19  grosseren  Quintilianischen  Dec- 
lamationen.  Munich.  1893. 

Marx,  Chauvinismus  und  Schulreform  im  Alterthum.  Breslau. 
1894. 


VITA. 

Natus  sum  anno  MDCCCLXII  in  pago  Massachusetts,  in 
oppido  Beverly.  Litterarum  elementis  domi  imbutus  in  numerum 
discipulorum  Universitatis  Harvard  receptus  sum,  quae  anno 
MDCCCLXXXIV  testimonio  A.  B.  (magna  cum  laude)  me 
donavit.  Postea  per  sexennium  litteras  Latinas  Graecasque  in 
scholis  in  Massachusetts  etin  Baltimore  docebam,nonnullis  quoque 
discipulis  singulis  mecum  adscriptis.  Cum  iam  in  docendo  versa- 
rer,  sodalis  creatus  sum  seminarii  philologici  in  Universitate  Johns 
Hopkins  cuius  exercitationibus  magna  cum  utilitate  mea  per  quat- 
tuor  annos  interfui.  Anno  MDCCCXCIV  ad  Universitatem 
Oxford  me  contuli  ubi  litteris  antiquis  per  unum  annum  operam 
dedi,  ill.  profs.  Ellis  et  Macdonell  optimis  consiliis  me  adiuvanti- 
bus.  Deinde  in  Germaniam  profectus  in  Universitate  Bonn  ill. 
profs.  Bucheler  et  Usener  exercitationibus  adfui  aestate  anni 
MDCCCLXCV.  Ill  profs.  Gildersleeve,  Bloomfield,  Warren 
bene  de  me  meritis  gratias  ago  singulares  autem  Warren  qui 
semper  fautor  exstitit  studiorum  meorum  benignissimus. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals    and    recharges    may    be    made    4    days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


Gaylamount 
Pamphlet 

Binder 
Gaylord  Bros.,  Inc. 

Stockton,  Calif. 
T.M.  Reg.  U.S.  Pat. Off. 


YC  00830 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


